Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:03:31.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental and Social Change in the Valle del Mezquital, Mexico, 1521–1600

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

Elinor G. K. Melville
Elinor G. K. Melville
Affiliation:
York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The often disastrous consequences of the introduction of exotic animals into a New World environment are very clearly demonstrated by the sixteenth-century history of the Valle del Mezquital, Mexico. A rapid and profound process of environmental degradation, caused by overstocking and indiscriminate grazing of sheep in the post-conquest era, leads us to ask whether the Spanish always acted in their own long-term interests in the New World.

Type
The Archaeology of Power
Information
Comparative Studies in Society and History , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , January 1990 , pp. 24 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The ecological consequences of the European diaspora have been clearly and comprehensively set out in Alfred Crosby's works, see especially The Columbian Exchange. Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492 (Westport, 1972)Google Scholar and Ecological Imperialism. The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900–1900 (London, 1986).Google Scholar

2 Gibson's, Charles classic study, The Aztecs under Spanish Rule (Stanford, 1967)Google Scholar, which was aimed at uncovering the details of Indian adaptation to Spanish rule, also demonstrated how Spanish institutions were modified and adapted to colonial realities and is the departure point for the modern histories. As others followed Gibson's lead and carried out detailed regional studies and investigated the internal structure and external relations of the hacienda, his ideas about the entrepreneurial spirit of the landowners in the colonial era were confirmed (Aztecs, 326 ff ), but striking differences between the regions were uncovered. See Young's, Eric Van review article for a discussion of the current understanding of reasons for regional differences in Mexico: “Mexiean Rural History Since Chevalier: The Historiography of the Colonial Hacienda,” Latin American Research Review, 18:3 (1983), 5–61.Google Scholar See also Mörner, Magnus, “The Spanish American Hacienda: A Survey of Recent Research and Debate,” Hispanic American Historical Review, 53:2 (1973), 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 This paper is based on research carried out for my doctoral dissertation: “The Pastoral Economy and Environmental Degradation in Highland Central Mexico, 1530–1600” (Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, 1983).Google Scholar

4 The most explicit statement of the importance of the international market for local development in Latin America was made by Frank, André Gunder, Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latín America. Historical Studies of Chile and Brazil (New York, 1967).Google ScholarWallerstein, Immanuel, The Modern World-System, 2 vols. (New York, 1974 and 1980), has followed with a detailed analysis of world history according to this thesis.Google Scholar

5 I have followed Miguel, Orthón de Mendizabal's definition (in Obras Completas, 6 vols. [Mexico, 1946–1947], VI) of the region: south, the northern end of the Valley of Mexico and the high mountains separating the region from the Toluca Valley; east, up to but not including the Siena de Pachuca; north, the southern slopes of the Siena de Juárez; and west, the San Francisco and Moctezuma Rivers.Google Scholar

6 Documentation for this study was taken from the Archivo General de Indias (specific sections: Audiencia de México, Contaduía, Escíbanfa de cámara, Indiferente Justicia, and Patronato) in Seville, Spain, and the Archivo General de la Nación (specific sections: Civil, General de Parte, Historia, Indios, Libro de Congregaciones, Mercedes, and Tierras) in Mexico City [hereafter referred to as AGI and AGN respectively]. The major published source was Papeles de Nueva Espanna, Troncoso, Francisco del Paso y, ed. (Madrid and Mexico, 1905–1948), Vols. I, III and VI [hereafter cited as PNE I, III or VI]. Where the documentary citations are extensive, reference will be made to my doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar

7 For a discussion of the production of maize in the southeast quarter of the region, see Cook, Sherburne F., The Historical Demography and Ecology of the Teotlalpan (Berkeley, 1949), 33–41. For evidence of the importance of the maguey and nopal in the north, see PNE 1, 219, 220; and PNE VI, 22.Google Scholar

8 Melville, “The Pastoral Economy,” ch. 2, n.s 25–30. AGN, “Mercedes,” supplied the bulk of the information about forests and woodlands; AGN, “Tienas;” and PNE I also provided a great quantity of information; and occasional references were found in PNE III and VI; AGN, “Indios;” and AGI, “Escribanía de cámara,” “Indiferente,” and “Justicia.”

9 Melville, , “The Pastoral Economy,” ch. 2, n. 31.Google Scholar

10 Melville, , “The Pastoral Economy,” ch. 2, n. 24. The major source for information about the irrigation systems was PNE I; AGN, “Tierras” and “Mercedes” were next in importance; followed by AGN, “Historia” and “Indios;” and AGI, “Justicia” and “México.” References were mostly made to irrigation (rregadio or irrigación) but occasionally irrigation ditches or canals were mentioned (acequias or canales).Google Scholar

11 Melville, , “The Pastoral Economy,” ch. 2, n.s 25–30, 37. The names given in the documents for these plants were: pasto, zacate (grasses); rrobles, encinos (oaks, live oaks); pinos, oyamel (pines); capulies (native chenies); sauces (willows); ahuehuetes (cedars); mesquite (mesquite); lechuguilla (wild maguey); tunal, nopal (wild cactus); palmas sylvestres (yuccas); espinos (thorns). The records of the land grants found in AGN, “Mercedes,” were the most fruitful source for this type of information and were used together with AGN, “Tierras;” PNE I; and AGI, “Justicia.”Google Scholar

12 PNE I, 60, 125, 159–60, 193, 217–8, 220. PNE III, 69, 72. AGN, “Mercedes,” vol. 2, fols. 48, 95–6; vol. 5, fol. 260; vol. 6, fol. 515; vol. 7, fol. 349; vol. 9, fols. 132–3; vol. 12, fol. 485. AGN, “Tierras,” vol. 3, exp. 1; vol. 1529, exp. I. AGI, “Justicia,” leg. 124 1, fol. 19.

13 PNE 1,2–3,21,22,57,59,60, 110, 125, 159–60, 166, 193–4, 207, 208, 209–10, 217–20, 223–4, 289, 292, 310.

14 Archaeological surveys of the Tula River basin and headwaters demonstrate very dense conquest population, see E, A. B. Mastache de. and Ana, Maria Crespo O., “La Ocupación Prehispánica en el Area de Tula, Hgo.,” in Proyecto Tula, Motezuma, Eduardo Matos, ed. (Mexico, 1974–1976), no. 33;Google Scholar and Sanders, W. T., Parsons, J. R., and Santley, R., The Basin of Mexico (New York, 1979), 179, 213–6.Google Scholar See also Gerhard, Peter A., A Guide to the Historical Geography of New Spain (Cambridge, 1972), 295.Google Scholar

15 AGN, “Tierras,” vol. 3, exp. 1; vol. 64, exp. 1; vol. 79, exp. 6; vol. 1486, exp. 8; vol. 1487, exp. 1; AGN, “Mercedes,” vol. 5, fol. 122; AGI, “Justicia,” vol. 207:2, ramo 3. AGI, “Escribania de cámará, leg. 161–C, fol. 250.

16 I found evidence of only two instances of environmental degradation prior to 1560, both pertaining to the Jilotepec sub-area, AGI, México, leg. 96, ramo 1, and AGN, “Tierras,” vol. 1872, exp. 10.

17 A more complete discussion of ecological changes is given below. References relating to deforestation and fighting over trees is to be found in: AGN, “Mercedes,” vol. 6, fol. 456; vol. 7, fol. 87. AGN, “Tierras,” vol. 2697, exp. 11; PNE I, 217–8. PNE VI. 33.

18 For a discussion of the distorting effect of the “preconceptions and expectations” of settlers in descriptions of early New England, see Cronon, William, Changes in the Land. Indians, Colonists and the Ecology of New England (New York, 1983), 20. See also ch. 1, in which Cronon discusses the types of sources available for the study of ecological changes in New England.Google Scholar

19 See Gibson, Charles, Aztecs, 281, for a discussion of Spanish invasion of vacated pueblo lands.Google Scholar

20 See Chevalier, François, La formación de los latifundios en México (Mexico, 1975), 12, 119–20;Google Scholar and also Vassberg, David E., Land and Society in Golden Age Castile (Cambridge, 1984), especially 13–18 for a discussion of stubble grazing and 19–56 for a discussion of municipal property.Google Scholar

21 Simpson, Gibson, and Chevalier also noted that grants were very often issued for lands in the possession of the grantees; see Simpson, Lesley B., Exploitation of Land in Central Mexico in the Sixteenth Century (Berkeley, 1952), 6;Google ScholarGibson, , Aztecs, 275;Google ScholarChevalier, , La Formación, 131.Google Scholar

22 AGN, “Mercedes,” vol. 4, fols. 330–2. Herman W. Konrad has come to the same conclusion regarding the slaves' relations with the villagers and thinks that perhaps the station owners ignored orders to control their slaves' actions (verbal communication, 1985).

23 See Melville, , “The Pastoral Economy,” ch. 2, n.s 35 and 40,Google Scholar for references to problems with animals in the Valle del Mezquital. The problems caused in Indian lands by grazing animals is well documented, see for example Gibson, , Aztecs, 280,Google Scholar and Simpson, , Exploitation, 4–6.Google Scholar

24 Chevalier, , La Formación, 133–5.Google Scholar Evidently the order to remove cattle was enforced. For example, Rodrigo de Castaneda was compelled to remove his cattle from Jilotepec in 1557, see AGI, “México,” leg. 1841, fols. lr-8r.Google Scholar

25 An investigation carried out in 1564 of the towns to be granted in encomienda to a son of Moctzuma shows that there was still little room between the towns in the Tula sub-area at this date. See AGI, “Justicia,” leg. 207, 2, ramo 3.

26 See footnote 39. In sixteenth-century Mexico, the term ganado menor included sheep, goats and pigs. In the Valle del Mezquital, sheep appear to have constituted the bulk of the flocks, although by the end of the century the proportion of goats in the flocks increased.

27 AGN, “Tiengs,” vol. 1525, exp. 1; vol. 2697, exp. 11; AGN, “Mercedes,” vol. 4, fols. 330–2; vol. 7, fol. 87.

28 AGN, “Tierras,” vol. 64, exp. 1; vol. 83, exp. 10; vol. 2717, exp. 10; vol. 2766, exp. 3.

29 Simpson, , Exploitation, ii.Google Scholar

30 See Melville, , “The Pastoral Economy,”Google Scholar Appendix A, for sources used in estimating tributary population totals. Evidence for the tributary population was based almost entirely on tribute records from the Contaduria of the AGI. Ecclesiastical records were used to check doubtful totals or for the few cases in which totals were not available in the Contaduria. My totals agree fairly well with those estimated for this region by Cook, Sherburne F. and Borah, Woodrow, The Indian Population of Central Mexico, 1531–1610 (Berkeley, 1960) but have the advantage of being based almost entirely on a single source.Google Scholar

According to contemporary witnesses the Indian population of New Spain had declined by as much as two-thirds and possibly five-sixths by the mid-1560s (Gibson, , The Aztecs, 138). The tributary population of the Valle del Mezquital in 1570 was 76,946. If a 66 percent decline is applied to the 1570 total, we get an estimated tributary population in the Valle del Mezquital of 226,311 at the time of the conquest; while an 83 percent decline gives 452,623. By 1600 the tributary population had declined to 20,447.5. The total population decline for the Valle del Mezquital over the period 1519–1600 is therefore somewhere between 90.9 percent and 95.4 percent.Google Scholar

31 Sources of land holding are listed by cabecera and in chronological order. The two primary sources for land use and land tenure were: AGN, “Tierras,” which contains documentation of land suits concerning ownership, boundaries, land use and inheritance; and AGN, “Mercedes,” the records of land grants, grazing rights and licences of various sorts. Other sources in order of importance were: AGI, “México,” “Justicia,” “Escribania de cámara;” AGN, “General de parte,” “Indios”; and PNE I.

Of the 862 sheep stations documented for the Valle del Mezquital for the sixteenth century, only 407 appeared in the records as formal land grants. I have designated the remaining 455 stations as “squatters' holdings” because I found no evidence of formal title for these stations; they were identified by reference to holdings which had either formed the boundaries of new grants, been mentioned as being located in their vicinity, or been the subject of court cases, wills, informes, diligencias, or relaciones.

32 Johanessen, Carl L. writes that the “carrying capacity of the range may be described as the number of animals it can support in health, during the period when grass is palatable and nutritious, without reducing forage production in subsequent years.… Overgrazing occurs when the number of stock exceeds the carrying capacity of the range” (Savannas of Interior Honduras [Berkeley, 1963], 106).Google Scholar

33 For a discussion of the variables and the supporting arguments, see Hastings, James R. and Turner, Raymond M., The Changing Mile. A? Ecological Study of Vegetation Change With Time in the Lower Mile of an Arid and Semi Arid Region (Tucson, 1965), 3–6, 275–83.Google Scholar

34 See Johanessen, , Savannas, 78, for a similar interpretation of the relationship between vegetative changes and livestock densities.Google Scholar

35 AGN, “Mercedes,” vol. 3, fols. 95–96, 113. Although the regulations did not allow burning in the forests, accidents sometimes did happen, and forests were burnt; see AGN, “Mercedes,” vol. 3, exp. 249, fols. 95–96. Jeffrey R. Parsons has not found archaeological evidence of regular burns in the Valley of Mexico for the late pre-conquest period (verbal communication, 1983).

36 The division of the region into ten sub-areas was based on geopolitical criteria. The Valle del Mezquital consists of eight wide flat plains and valleys, an area of low rolling hills forming the headwaters of the Tula River, and the high mountain valleys of the northern end of the Siena de las Cruces. The broad division of the region is based on these ten geographic areas, and the final boundaries have been taken to be coterminous with the land under the jurisdiction of the cabeceras (head towns) located within their borders.

37 The area of land converted to pastoralism was obtained by multiplying the number of stations present in each sub-area at the end of each decade by 7.8 (the area in square kilometers of a grant for a sheep station) and was expressed as a percentage of the total sub-area in order to compare sub-areas of widely different surface extension.

Land use was specified in the land grants, and these documents have been used in this study as the major source of evidence for land use practises. Although compliance with these orders is somewhat problematic, I have found that only in the 1550s, when cattle were expelled from this region, was the order disobeyed and in this case the owner was forced to comply (see n. 24). In his study Simpson asked: “What assurance do we have that land was actually used for the purposes stipulated in the grants?” and replied that this question “may … be safely answered in the affirmative” (Exploitation, 20).Google Scholar

38 The grazing rates for each sub-area were calculated by dividing the total number of head within a sub-area at the end of each decade by the square kilometers of grazing land: G = Sn/a, where G is the grazing rate in head per square kilometers, S is the stocking rate in head per station, n is the number of stations, and a is the surface area of the sub-area in square kilometers.

39 See Melville, , “The Pastoral Economy,” ch. 5, n.s 8–16 for references to changes in the stocking rates up to 1579. Evidence for the stocking rates was taken from documentation of court cases, wills, complaints lodged by Indians, and censuses. The information contained in these sources has obvious biases. For instance, in order to make their case Indians undoubtedly reported larger numbers of animals than in fact existed on Spaish lands. The numbers admitted to by the Spanish pastoralists depended on the case they were arguing. For example, if they needed more Indian laborers assigned to them, they inflated the numbers of stock; but if they were responding to the complaints of the Indians about overstocking, they played down the numbers. Censuses carried out by royal officials are probably the most reliable source, although officials can always be bribed. The best way to deal with these difficulties is to collect many samples from different sources, so that the estimation of the average stocking rate is predicated on as broad a sample as possible.Google Scholar

40 AGI, México, leg. 111, ramo 2, doe. 12.

41 The principal source for the stocking rate of the 1590s is de Mendizábal, , Obras Completas, 114–7.Google Scholar

42 Chevalier, , La Formación, 121–2, 131,Google Scholar 141 ff. Gibson, , Aztecs, 276–7, 280.Google ScholarSimpson, , Exploitation, 21.Google Scholar

43 Grazing rates reported for other regions far exceeded those estimated for the Valle del Mezquital in the sixteenth century. For example, Simpson reports a grazing rate of 2,857 per square kilometer in Tlaxcala in 1542 (Exploitation, 13). In the Bajio in 1582, 200,000 sheep, along with 100,000 cows and 10,000 horses, grazed an area of nine leagues square (1,417.5 square kilometers): Morrisey, Richard J., “Colonial Agriculture in New Spain,” Agricultural History 31 (07, 1957), 24–29. Using sixteenth-century estimates of adequate stocking rates for sheep (2000 head/7.8 square kilometers equal 256 per square kilometer) and cattle and horses (500 head divided by 17.5 square kilometers equals 28.5 per square kilometer), it can be seen that cattle and horses needed nine times as much grazing land; if we convert cattle and horses into sheep, we get a total of 1,190,000 head and a grazing rate of 839 per square kilometer.Google Scholar

44 For Spanish lime manufacture, see AGN, “Mercedes,” vol. 6, fols. 455–6; vol. 7, fol. 87; vol. 8, fols. 227–8; vol. 13, fols. 71, 176; vol. 14, fol. 292; vol. 16, fols. 201–2. AGN, “Indios,” vol. 6–2, exp. 998. AGN, “Tierras,” vol. 2697, exp. 10; exp. 11.

45 Melville, , “The Pastoral Economy,” ch. 5, n.s 27–68.Google Scholar

46 “Son tierras ruinas y lomas en tepetate y tierras delgadas,” AGN, “Tierras,” vol. 2812, exp.12.

47 “Por ser tierra pedregosa tepetate barrancas no es por sembrarlas … esta rodeada de cenos y barrancas y todo pedregal calichal y tepetate … no servir sino para traer en ellas ganado menor,” AGN, “Tierras,” vol. 2735, 2a pte., exp. 9.

48 “No hay ni se halla en este pueblo mas de ovexas y desto hay buen multiplico,” PNE VI, 181.Google Scholar

49 “Que esta en un llano sobre tepetate y entre unos mesquitales no comodo por congregacion … comodo e1 sitio para ganado menor” (AGN, Historia, vol. 410, exp. 5).

50 Melville, , “The Pastoral Economy,” ch. 5, n.s 89–92.Google Scholar

51 ibid., ch. 5, n.s 69–73.

52 ibid., ch. 5, n.s 74–88, 93–102.

53 ibid., ch. 5, n.s 24–26.

54 One quote from an application for a merced in the Tula sub-area in 1594 makes the position very clear: “Y declara y declaro no aver lugar de dar sitio de estancia en ella a otra persona y asi lo mande poner por auto” (AGN, “Mercedes,” vol. 18, fol. 156).

55 Melville, , “The Pastoral Economy,” ch. 5, n.s 103–12.Google Scholar

56 ibid., ch. 5, n.s 113–7.

57 ibid., ch. 5, n. 118.

58 Melville, , “The Pastoral Economy,” ch. 5, n.s 119–36.Google Scholar

59 AGN, “Tierras,” vol. 79, exp. 6.

60 Labores consisted of two to six caballerias de tierra (agricultural land grants) worked as a unit.

61 Melville, , “The Pastoral Economy,” ch. 5, n. 135. Huichiapan had forty-one labores; the Southern Plain, two, Tula, two, Jilotepec, one.Google Scholar

62 The quote reads: “Quando se hizo el concierto avia doble mas agua en los fuentes y despues aca se an secado algunos ojos y no mana tanta cantidad como solia y si huviesen de negar e1 dia de hoy la dicha hazienda y los dichos yndios por e1 orden y concierto que an tenido no ay bastante agua,” AGN, “Tierras,” vol. 3, exp. I.

63 Melville, , “The Pastoral Economy,” ch. 5, n.s 137–46.Google Scholar

64 PNE VI, 4.

65 Melville, , “The Pastoral Economy,” ch. 5, n.s 147–9.Google Scholar

66 Cook, , The Historical Demography, 41–59.Google Scholar

67 Cook, Sherburne F., Soil Erosion and Population in Central Mexico (Berkeley, 1949), 84.Google Scholar

68 Cook, , Historical Demography, 54.Google Scholar

69 ibid., 52.

70 ibid., 54.

71 Mastache, de E. and Crespo, O., “La Ocupación Prehispánica en el Area de Tula, Hgo.,” 76–77;Google Scholar and Sanders, W. T. et al. The Basin of Mexico, 179, –6.Google Scholar

72 Andel, Tjeerd van and Runnels, Curtis, Beyond the Acropolis: A Rural Greek Past (Stanford, 1987).Google Scholar

73 ibid., ch. 8.

74 The number of stations (cumulative totals) in the region by the end of each decade: 1539 (34), 1549 (75), 1559 (108), 1565 (276), 1569 (294), 1579 (399.5), 1589 (583.5), 1599 (862).

75 Chevalier, , La Formación, 139–140.Google ScholarSimpson, , Exploitation, 22 ff.,Google ScholarFrank, André Gunder, Mexican Agriculture, 1521–1630, (Cambridge, 1979), ch. 6.Google Scholar

76 Mendizábal, Obras, vol. 6, 112. The peso of common gold was a low-grade gold coin of approximately 14 carats, equal in market value to eight silver reales. See Meeks, Wilbur, The Exchange Media of Colonial Mexico (New York, 1948), 34–38.Google Scholar

77 Examples of some haciendas in the Valle del Mezquital in the early seventeenth century by approximate size: 500 square kilometers (Mendizábal, , Obras, VI, 112);Google Scholar 420 square kilometers (AGN, “Tierras,” vol. 2711, exp. 10); 293 square kilometers (AGN, “Tierras,” vol. 1520, exp. 5); 180 square kilometers (AGN, “Tierras,” vol. 2692, exp. 6); 124 square kilometers (AGN, “Tierras,” vol. 2813, exp. 13). Ixmiquilpan was monopolised by ten haciendas, each averaging 102.8 square kilometers (AGN,“Civil,” vol. 77, exp. 11, fol. 80v). The huge Santa Lucia Hacienda of the Jesuits, which extended over the eastern half of the Northern Valley and Ixmiquilpan sub-areas by the early eighteenth century, already extended well into the Northern Valley by the early seventeenth century (Konrad, Herman W., A Jesuit Hacienda in Colonial Mexico. Santa Lucia, 1576–1767, (Stanford, 1980), ch. 3).Google Scholar

78 Chevalier, , La Formación, 144.Google ScholarFrank, , Mexican Agriculture, ch. 6.Google Scholar

79 Licate, Jack A., Creation of a Mexican Landscape. Territorial Organization and Settlement in the Eastern Puebla Basin, 1520–1605, (Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Research Paper no. 201, 1981), 124.Google ScholarLockhart, James, “Espanonles entre indios: Toluca a fines del siglo XVI,” in Estudios sobre la ciudad iberoamericana, Solano, Francisco de, coordinator (Madrid, 1975), 448.Google Scholar

80 Several writers have correlated the spread of pastoralism and overgrazing in Mexico with deforestation and erosion. For example, see Gibson, , Aztecs, 5–6, 305;Google ScholarSimpson, , Exploitation, 23;Google ScholarTrautman, Wolfgang, Las transformaciones en el paisaje cultural de Tlaxcala durante la época colonial (Weisbaden, 1981), 177.Google Scholar

81 See Simpson, , Exploitation, 2 f., for contemporary witness to the increase of grazing animals.Google Scholar

82 Chevalier, , La Formación, 137 ff.Google Scholar

83 Quoted in Chevalier, La Formación, 138.Google Scholar

84 Simpson, , Exploitation, 23;Google ScholarChevalier, , La Formación, 139 ff.Google Scholar

85 Quoted in Simpson, , Exploitation, 22.Google Scholar