Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 22

6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 49 of 250

Ethnohistory

Haciendas, Ranchos, and the Otomí Way of Life in


the Mezquital Valley, Hidalgo, Mexico

Patricia Fournier-García, Escuela Nacional de


Antropología e Historia
Lourdes Mondragón, Instituto Nacional de
Antropología e Historia

Abstract. During the colonial period, Indian republics were formed as were pri-
vate holdings in the Otomí region of the Mezquital Valley. The indigenous popula-
tion was deprived of fertile agricultural lands while ranchos and haciendas raised
cattle, affecting the fragile semiarid environment of the region. This article ana-
lyzes the economic strategies of the indigenous inhabitants of the valley with an
ethnoarchaeological and historical perspective. Based on the historical evidence,
this article studies the socioeconomic interactions among the Otomí Indians and the
haciendas during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The impact of the indige-
nous marginal survival strategies on the economic success of ranchos and haciendas
in the Tula and Ixmiquilpan subregions is analyzed.

The Mezquital Valley is part of the Central Mexican Highlands and covers
an area of , square kilometers within the physiographic area of the
neovolcanic axis of the central Mexican plateau (Figure ). It includes the
western part of the state of Hidalgo, the northern part of the state of
Mexico, and a limited part of southwestern Queretaro (Fournier ;
López et al. : ). Currently the region is inhabited by the Otomí, an
ethnic group whose members have been progressively marginalized eco-
nomically since the beginning of the colonial period. This article explores
the long-term political and economic processes that led to the present state
of affairs, with particular attention to the formation of haciendas, ranchos,
and other private Spanish holdings in the valley. We suggest that the eco-
nomic situation of the Otomí is not simply a product of colonial exploi-
tation. Instead, the Mezquital’s limiting ecological conditions, especially
its infertile calcareous soils and scarcity of water, conditioned long-term
patterns of interaction between the Otomí and the Spanish colonists.

Ethnohistory : (winter )


Copyright © by the American Society for Ethnohistory.
Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

Published by Duke University Press


6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 50 of 250

Ethnohistory

 Patricia Fournier-García and Lourdes Mondragón

Figure . The Mezquital Valley. Drawing by Alfonso Torres.


Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

Published by Duke University Press


6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 51 of 250

Ethnohistory

Haciendas, Ranchos, and the Otomí Way of Life 

Perhaps more than in any other region of the Central Mexican High-
lands, the environmental characteristics of the Mezquital Valley make
it incumbent upon inhabitants to adopt complex strategies of natural
resources use. This is certainly the case if the Mezquital Valley is compared
to areas to the east, south, and west; only the neighboring region to the
north shares its shallow soils, scarcity of permanent water sources, and low
precipitation. Indeed, the Mezquital area is the archetype of a sterile and
eroded region. Different studies have emphasized the precariousness of the
environment, describing it as arid and infertile, ‘‘dispossessed’’ and inhos-
pitable, and the heart of drought and hunger (Anderson et al. ; Benitez
: , ; Lanks : ; Melville : ; Ortiz de Montellano
: ; Soustelle : –). The area, what may be one of the poor-
est and most marginalized regions of Mexico, is a classic example of how
humans can survive using unusual food sources (Johnson : ; Ortiz
de Montellano : ). The environment of the region has conditioned
not only the relations between people and their habitat; it has conditioned
social development and the relations between local inhabitants and the state
as well.
Initial Spanish colonization of the valley was characterized by small
ranchos and haciendas with limited productivity. Although the Otomí
actively contested the alienation of their lands, they were gradually pushed
into the more ecologically difficult areas of the valley, especially as popu-
lation declined. Consequently, their economic activities became increas-
ingly subsistence oriented. By the early nineteenth century, the pace of
latifundio development increased, and indigenous land and water rights
were usurped by Spanish-controlled municipal governments. Because the
haciendas and ranchos raised livestock, however, they employed relatively
few Indian laborers. The low ecological potential of the environment that
had severely limited the success of the cattle estates also precluded the
wholesale exploitation of Indian labor, resulting in a degree of cultural con-
tinuity for the Otomí.
During the eighteenth century, the most important territorial jurisdic-
tions of the region included Tula, Ixmiquilpan, Tetepango, and Huicha-
pan.1 The colonial regime imposed the Repúblicas de indios (Indian repub-
lics), a system of local Indian government, in these jurisdictions to facilitate
control and access to Indian labor while maintaining a separation between
Indian villages and private Spanish holdings. Spanish landholders monopo-
lized water sources, fertile agricultural lands, and the best grazing lands to
the detriment of both the indigenous population and the fragile semiarid
environment of the region. Thus the ostensibly ‘‘separate’’ Indian and Span-
ish republics were linked competitively on an ecological basis beyond the
Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

Published by Duke University Press


6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 52 of 250

Ethnohistory

 Patricia Fournier-García and Lourdes Mondragón

obligation of Indian communities to furnish labor and taxes to the colo-


nial regime. This article analyzes the economic strategies of the indigenous
inhabitants of the valley using settlement pattern data within an ethno-
archaeological and historical perspective. Based on the historical record,
we address the processes of social, political, and economic interaction in
the Mezquital Valley from the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries.

Indian Republics, Ranchers, and Hacienda Owners

The Mezquital region has been inhabited by people of the Otomí or


Hñähñü ethnic group since at least ..  (Fournier ). This indige-
nous group has been documented in many historical sources as having been
hunter-gatherers living in a dispersed settlement pattern. In these docu-
ments, the term hunter is used in a derogatory fashion, meaning people
who were awkward or clumsy as well as lazy (Sahagún : ). The
archaeological evidence, however, indicates that the Otomí established per-
manent settlements during the pre-Columbian period, based on a rainy-
season agriculture, and sometimes even built water-control features. Com-
munities still tended to be dispersed, however, in order to utilize the area’s
limited natural resources (Fournier ; Fournier et al. ; Fournier and
Vargas-Sanders in press). The manner of resource exploitation was appar-
ently efficient enough to support a relatively large population, perhaps as
many as half a million inhabitants (Fournier : ).
At the end of the Late Postclassic, the region fell under the control of
the Mexica Empire and was divided into a series of tributary provinces and
independent states, including Hueypuchtla, Axocopan, Atotonilco, Tula,
and Xilotepec (Hicks : –; Paso y Troncoso : –, ). These
provinces paid tribute to their lords in woven maguey (Agave spp.) fiber,
feathered warrior costumes, shields, sandals, maize, beans, chia (sage, Sal-
via hispanica), huautli (amaranth, Amaranthus hypocondriacus), lime, thick
maguey honey, turkeys, and deer hides (Acuña , ; Paso y Troncoso
: –, ). These products reflect a level of specialized production
from the different provinces of the Mezquital Valley as well as an emphasis
on rainy-season agriculture and the specialized use of maguey.
During the colonial period, the territory of New Spain was divided
into two contrasting sectors: the Spanish Republic (República de espa-
ñoles) and the Indian Republic (República de indios). This division reflects
urban and rural differences as well as control over the geographic concen-
tration of indigenous people, their economic exploitation, and the evangeli-
zation of the indigenous population of the colony (Broda : ; Moreno
Toscano : ). In the case of the Mezquital Valley, there are five iden-
Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

Published by Duke University Press


6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 53 of 250

Ethnohistory

Haciendas, Ranchos, and the Otomí Way of Life 

tifiable areas (Actopan, Ixmiquilpan, Tetepango-Hueypuchtla, Tula, and


Xilotepec), which reflect to some degree the regional divisions of the tribu-
tary provinces of the Late Postclassic period (Gerhard ).
Under the socioeconomic and political controls of the encomienda
(grant of the right to receive tribute and labor) and repartimiento (labor
drafts) systems imposed after the Spanish conquest, the Otomí provided
service and tribute to the Spanish similar to those that they rendered to the
Mexica in the pre-Columbian period. Economic changes and the introduc-
tion of European crops and livestock, such as wheat, goats, sheep, cattle,
pigs, horses, and domestic birds, are reflected in tax assessments of the six-
teenth century, like the Libro de las Tasaciones.2 The production of both
cotton and maguey fiber textiles was particularly important for the Otomí.
In addition, there are references to ceramic production during the colonial
period.3 Pottery was indispensable to daily life, but it also was linked funda-
mentally to the Otomí specialization in maguey products, in which ceram-
ics were used to extract and process fresh maguey sap. This liquid was used
to ferment pulque and to make maguey honey, and at times it was sub-
stituted for drinking water, which was scarce in this arid region (Fournier
). The production of textiles, the use of maguey, and the manufacture
of ceramics remained the most important economic activities among the
Otomí until recently (Fournier ; Parsons and Parsons ). Historical
sources from different centuries document these activities. For example, in
 the natives of various communities in the jurisdiction of Tula twisted
and spun maguey fiber obtained from their maguey fields.4 According to
a padrón (census) from Tepetitlán, by  some men had developed the
trade of weaving.5 In , Indians in the town of Santa María del Pino pro-
duced pots and pitchers for sale;6 in , the entire economically active
population (adult Indian males) appears registered as potters.7
The effects of the colonial forms of political, legal, ideological, and
economic control deeply affected the way of life of the indigenous popu-
lation of the Mezquital. The indigenous communities suffered drastic
changes in their basic subsistence and production patterns as they were
dispossessed of the most fertile lands of the region. Beginning in the six-
teenth century, the Spanish Crown made mercedes (land grants) of mayo-
razgos (entailed estates) to conquerors (conquistadores) or colonists and to
some caciques (Indian rulers or nobles) of Tenochca ancestry (Fernández
de Reca : –, –). Within the Indian republics, the num-
ber of Spanish residents was limited to those individuals who were directly
connected to governmental, religious, and economic organizations, such as
encomiendas, mercedes, estancias (cattle ranchos), and mines (Mendizabal
: ).
Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

Published by Duke University Press


6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 54 of 250

Ethnohistory

 Patricia Fournier-García and Lourdes Mondragón

In the early colonial period, the indigenous population of the Mez-


quital Valley was large. Most of the region was part of the Franciscan prov-
ince of Santo Evangelio, except for the northern areas that were part of
the Augustinian province of Santísimo Nombre de Jesús. Chapantongo,
part of the Agustinian realm, contained , subjects between  and
 (Rubial : ). In the Franciscan province, Tula was one of the
ecclesiastical headquarters with a population of around , Indian trib-
ute payers in  (Mendizabal : ; Rubial : ). In the seven-
teenth century, there were fifteen Indian towns grouped into three sections
in the jurisdiction of Tula (Santa María del Pino, San Juan Michimaloya,
La Asunción de Xochitlan, San Andrés, Santa Ana, San Juan Bautista de
Tezontepec, San Francisco Tlahualilpan, San Pedro Tlachcapan, La Asun-
ción de Zacamolpan, La Natividad de Yllocan, San Lucas Huantela, San
Miguel San Marcos Iztlatlali, San Lorenzo Quapachtli, and San Pedro
Alpoyeca), as well as three old encomiendas (Nextlalpan, Tepetitlán, and
Sayula), with a total of three thousand inhabitants. Of these,  were
either Spanish, black, or mestizo (a person of mixed Spanish and indige-
nous ancestry), and the remaining , people were Otomí natives (Vetan-
curt  []: ). Also in the jurisdiction of Tula were seven haciendas
that raised cattle and grain. The number of haciendas in Chapantongo and
Huichapan at this time has not been determined.
Beginning in  in Tepetitlán, jurisdiction of Tula, repartimientos
and mercedes were made to Spanish colonists for raising livestock.8 Decrees
dating from  and  ordered that non-Indians could not live within
the six hundred varas (one vara roughly equals one yard) of land granted to
communities. Nevertheless, it was common for the communities to rent out
lands to important institutions, as they did to the Convent of Jesús María.9
During the sixteenth century, the jurisdictions of Tula and Chapan-
tongo were among the first districts to attract large numbers of Spanish
colonists, possibly due to the proximity of these areas to Mexico City. The
Otomí response to this invasion was to begin raising small livestock (mainly
sheep and goats) as a potential way to keep the Spanish colonists from
taking the poorer quality lands and converting them into large estancias.10
Sheep herding was important to the natives for raising the money needed
to pay tribute obligations and for building and maintaining churches. This
and other changes in land use had a great impact on the natives’ way of life.
They were obligated to work in the repartimientos as laborers or contracted
farmhands, either for the Spanish estancieros (owners of cattle ranchos) or
for their own communities and caciques. Because of this, subsistence agri-
culture as well as other economic activities were partially abandoned as
the indigenous labor force was integrated into the new system of private
property (Melville ; Simpson : –, ).
Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

Published by Duke University Press


6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 55 of 250

Ethnohistory

Haciendas, Ranchos, and the Otomí Way of Life 

At the beginning of the seventeenth century, large estancias were


formed that concentrated on livestock production (Quezada : ).
The majority of these estancias were the private property of the Spanish
or of the Indian elite, and some were as large as fifty thousand hectares.11
These estancias were the antecedents of the latifundios, either haciendas or
ranchos, that increased in number after  (Melville : ). After this
time most of the indigenous people living in Indian communities mainly
practiced rainy-season agriculture on communal lands (Archivo General de
la Nación [hereafter ], Tierras, vol. , cuad. , f. – []).
Lands were sometimes usurped from the Indians both by Spanish
settlers 12 and by other nonindigenous people. In , the natives of Tepet-
itlán rented out some plots to a group of mulattos, who subsequently
appropriated those lands. The authorities finally forced the mulattos to
withdraw and to pay the rent they owed.13 According to records for ,
some Indians (possibly caciques), who may have been better off economi-
cally than other natives, leased ranchos composed of communal lands.14
In the Tula subregion, most of the population was indigenous. This
situation prevailed during the formation of large latifundios of the eigh-
teenth and nineteenth centuries, and it has continued until recently. At the
very beginning of the colonial period, much cultivable land was depopu-
lated due to the drastic population decline of the native peoples of New
Spain. It was subsequently either acquired by the hacienda owners or
retained by the communities, who were often forced to sell in order to pay
off tribute debts (Gerhard : ).15 In the Tula area, this depopulation,
or ‘‘absence of neighbors’’ as it is called, was the direct result of epidemics,
emigration from the area, overexploitation of labor, general agricultural
crisis, and the difficulties of fulfilling tribute obligations.16
Nevertheless, from the time that the republics and the congregaciones
(resettlement of the indigenous people to achieve greater nucleation) were
organized, the majority of the communities maintained more or less intact
the areas the Crown assigned to them. In most cases, these were zones
of thin and calcareous soils that were inadequate for cultivating grains.17
The Indians, however, kept access to water sources and springs, substan-
tiated by the founding documents of their communities, such as one from
Chapantongo from , used by the Indians to fight for their rights against
the hacendados from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries. In many
cases hacienda owners disputed these rights. One such dispute occurred
in Tenería, over the invasion and use of the community’s fertile lands and
water resources.18 At times the Otomí were forced to rent out their com-
munal lands to Spanish colonists 19 and other non-Indian people for many
years,20 and on occasion they even had to sell them.21
During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, there were constant
Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

Published by Duke University Press


6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 56 of 250

Ethnohistory

 Patricia Fournier-García and Lourdes Mondragón

struggles among indigenous inhabitants, landowners, and tenants because


the newcomers frequently invaded the natives’ lands, grazed their ani-
mals,22 destroyed houses,23 stole from maguey fields,24 and hoarded limited
water resources for themselves, their animals, and their crops.25 Legal dis-
putes also occurred among the Indians themselves,26 and among hacienda
owners,27 over the hoarding of scarce natural resources and livestock theft.28
These struggles began very soon after the conquest. For example, as
early as between  and , the natives of Otlazpa, in the jurisdiction
of Tepexi del Río, to the south of Tula, complained about the abuses com-
mitted by a Spanish estanciero who owned caballerías (a land grant of mod-
erate size for agricultural use) and an estancia in the area.29 Later, in ,
there was a similar problem in the same community.30
In another incident in , the natives of Tepetitlán were accused
of damaging an aqueduct that carried water to the pastures, animals, and
people of the hacienda San Lorenzo Endo.31 This hacienda, built in the
seventeenth century, was one of the most extensive and important latifun-
dios in the jurisdiction of Tula. The natives complained that they lacked
water and that they had to travel half a league to the Sayula spring to obtain
it. Because of this, a resolution was drawn up which established that from
Friday to Monday night, the water must run at night from its source to the
stream that fed the community. For the remaining four days of the week,
the water was reserved for the hacienda.
In another legal dispute documented in , the indigenous inhabi-
tants of Santa María del Pino allegedly invaded some highly calcareous
lands belonging to the Hacienda Endo. The natives also obtained wood
from a hill located inside the property of the hacienda but had to pay a
fee for it.32 In contrast, during the same year, the Indians of Tepetitlán
rented some land to Spanish colonists, with the aim of covering their own
expenses.33
For , a total of twelve haciendas, as well as eight ranchos and
rancherías (small ranchos), were registered for the Tula region (Figure ;
Table ),34 the most extensive being the Hacienda Endo. It is important to
mention that in  there were twelve haciendas and ranchos in this juris-
diction, while in Chapantongo there were three haciendas and five ranchos
(Gerhard : , ). In the latter subregion, the main concentration
of latifundios was found either in the southern zone or along the Tula River,
where the best farming and grazing lands were located. This zone also had
a secure water supply for building irrigation systems, which only the land-
owners could afford to build.
In , the viceroyal authorities issued an ordinance dealing with the
community property of the Indians in this jurisdiction.35 It specified that
Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

Published by Duke University Press


6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 57 of 250

Ethnohistory

Figure . The Tula region in . Source: AGN, Tierras, vol. , foja .
. Santa María del Pino . Condesa . San Ildefonso
. Tepeytig . San Antonio . San Lucas
. Tepetitlán . Santa María Suchitlán . Santa María Ylucan
. Endo . San Andrés . Dengui
. Mestlalpa . Cochico . Salto
. Joya . Tula . Caltengo
. Joya chica b. San Lorenzo . Tepeji
. Santa María Nasto . Tultengo . Potrero
. Mestlalpa . San Pedro . Santiago
. Santa Ana . Santa María Coajuzpa . San Bernardino
b. Michimaloya . Puerto del Rey . Santa María
. Jiteje . San Marcos . San Ignacio
. San Francisco . Ocote . San José  lenguas
Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

. Bojay . Del Molino, Nostitlán . San Buenaventura


. Xicuco . Acoculco

Published by Duke University Press


6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 58 of 250

Ethnohistory

 Patricia Fournier-García and Lourdes Mondragón

Table . Towns, haciendas, and ranchos in the jurisdiction of Tula in 

Pueblos Haciendas Ranchos


Santa María del Pino Endo Joya Chica
Tepeytig Joya Xicuco
Tepetitlán Bojay Condesa
Nestlalpa Nestlalpa Puerto del Rey
Santa María Nasto San Antonio Potrero
Santa Ana Ocote San Bernardino
Michimaloya Caltengo Acoculco
Tultengo San Yona Xitejé
San Pedro Salto
San Andrés Dengui
Tula Santa María
San Marcos del Molino
Santa Maria Coajuzpa
Sta. María Suchitlan
San Ildefonso
San Lucas
Santa María Ylucan
Tepeji
Santiago
San Ignacio
San Josef
San Buenaventura
San Lorenzo
Nositlan
San Francisco
Source: , Padrones, vol. , fojas –.

the governmental representatives could at no time sell or dispose of these


possessions and that it was within the power of the Otomí to rent out parts
of their communal lands as ranchos, house lots, or fields, in whatever way
they saw fit (Table ).
The main production activities that were carried out in communities
like Santa María del Pino are well documented and consist mainly of rainy-
season cultivation of maize and other seed crops on lands distributed to
the indigenous inhabitants by the viceroyal authorities.36 In  in Tepexi
del Río, a fertile zone with an abundance of water as its name indicates, a
section of terrain was reserved for small livestock along with some lands
suitable for planting wheat, maize, fruits, and vegetables.37
Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

Published by Duke University Press


6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 59 of 250

Ethnohistory

Haciendas, Ranchos, and the Otomí Way of Life 

Table . Possessions of Indian communities in the jurisdiction of Tula

Tributaries*
Community Rented
Town Lands Lands Whole Half
Tula 1 small ranch, 8 milpas 124 64
10 solares
El Salitrillo
Santa María del Pino 600 varas 47 19
San Francisco 22 19
San Miguel Tecaxique 90 33
San Juan Michimaloya 114 54
Santiago Tultengo 26 20
Santa María Ylucan 33 14
Los Reyes de Tepeitique 16 12
San Marcos Xicapoya 91 56
San Lucas 14 7
Miguel Nostitlan 13 16
San Lorenzo Xipacoya 33 15
Santa María Qualuspa 24 11
Pedro Alpuyeca 30 20
Santa María Axuchitlan 59 47
San Andrés Chaltepec 57 15
Santa Ana 20 20
Bartolomé Tepetitlán 20 solares 86 46
San Pedro Nextlapa 98 51
San Mateo 23 9
Santa María Tlaxilotepec 34 12
Tepexi del Rio 7 pieces of tierras 124 70
de labor, 4 solares
San Ildefonso 82 37
Parcialidad de Otlaxpa 4 ranchos, 4 solares, 155 52
3 milpas
San Ignacio Otlaxpa 53 17
San Buenaventura 3 ranchos 81 26
San José 31 4
Source: , Indios, vol. , exp. , foja –v.
*A whole tributary was an indigenous man between the ages of sixteen and forty who was
married or the head of a family; a single man or widower was a half tributary (Malvido and
Cuenya : ).
Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

Published by Duke University Press


6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 60 of 250

Ethnohistory

 Patricia Fournier-García and Lourdes Mondragón

Indigenous Peoples and Hacienda Owners


in Independent Mexico

When Mexico emerged as an independent nation, actions by the new gov-


ernment had a drastic impact on the organization of the Indian communi-
ties. Throughout the entire colonial period, these communities had devel-
oped cohesive social mechanisms based on communal land ownership and
on the fulfillment of community obligations, including tribute. The politi-
cal and administrative changes under the new system of town councils, in
combination with the overall scarcity of land (Ortiz Peralta : , ),
led to the privatization of all the territory of the Indian republics, which
the hacienda owners then quickly used to their own advantage.
In this manner, the latifundios gained more control in the Tula sub-
region, leading to constant conflicts between the natives and the land-
owners. These landowners often began to rent out grazing land to the
Indian communities, for which the Otomí were forced to pay ‘‘pasture
rental’’ (Archivo del Registro Civil de Tepetitlán [hereafter ], Hidalgo,
Nacimientos, vol. , fols. – [–]).
Most of the communities were small, like Santa María del Pino. For
example, in  a total of  individuals were registered for this town,
while Tepetitlán had  inhabitants in .38 In the haciendas, the num-
ber of permanent residents was very small because the farmhands and
shepherds were seasonally employed and lived in nearby communities. The
Hacienda Endo is a good example of this. There were a total of eleven resi-
dents in : one farmhand from Tepetitlán (possibly the foreman), one
clerk, two helpers, one cowhand, and six day laborers.39
Until recently, the common architectural style of the indigenous houses
in the Mezquital region has been characterized by its simplicity and small
size. Each house has a limited number of rooms, generally one or two.
Construction materials were abundant in the region. Houses were built of
materials such as rocks and maguey pencas (leaves), rocks and mud mortar
with roofs of palm leaves or maguey pencas, or entirely of maguey pencas.
The Indians raised small livestock, such as sheep and goats, but they mainly
practiced rainy-season agriculture, cultivating maize as well as maguey in
their plots. Most of their farmland was eroded and calcareous. To comple-
ment this subsistence farming and herding, they worked as day laborers for
other individuals.40
The property and possessions of the Indians were few and of little
monetary value. For the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning
of the twentieth century, there are records for land reserved for plant-
ing maize and maguey valued between . and  pesos per plot. These
Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

Published by Duke University Press


6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 61 of 250

Ethnohistory

Haciendas, Ranchos, and the Otomí Way of Life 

covered extremely small areas and lacked water. Some merchants 41 or


farmers acquired lands that were worth as much as  pesos in total, while
day laborers and potters owned much less. In terms of the value of houses,
the Indian huts tended to be worth barely two pesos.42 For the most part,
the few products produced by the indigenous communities were consumed
there, although some were occasionally marketed outside of the area.
The ranchos and haciendas were more elaborate constructions than
the native houses, with walls of stone or brick plastered with lime, which
included doors, windows, and roofs of boards or beams. Although these
were relatively small structures (Figure ), they had multiple rooms with
designated functions, such as storage, back room, kitchen, corral, chicken
coop, stable, hayloft, granary, bedrooms, and living room. They also had
special installations, such as ovens, washbasins, and coach houses, and
they sometimes had gardens.43 Among the existing ruins of ranchos in the
region, remains of aqueducts and dams for irrigation are common. At El
Gavillero, in the vicinity of Chapantongo, a large-capacity granary was
present, and this rancho also had a separate house for the administrator
(Figure ).
The lands owned by the haciendas were classified according to their
quality as first-, second-, and third-class irrigated land; first- and second-
class rainy-season cultivated land; and pasture land. This was the case for
the Hacienda Tlahuelilpan, which in  covered , hectares (Feld-
man and Mastache : ). In haciendas like Endo, wheat, maize, and
maguey were cultivated, but the haciendas mainly specialized in breeding
goats and sheep (ibid.; Wobeser : –). Their products were sold
within the region as well as in the cities. The property and possessions of
the haciendas were abundant, although not equal to those located in agri-
cultural areas of high productivity. In Atitalaquia, for example, an inven-
tory (which totaled , pesos in goods) was compiled in , when the
owner of a latifundio died (Wobeser : ).
Among the rents collected in  in Tepetitlán, the main sales were
of pulque, sheep, calves, wheat flour, sea salt, pigs, chilies, barbacoa (baked
sheep or goat meat), and maize.44 The majority of this merchandise was
produced by haciendas in the region or by the indigenous communities.45
The haciendas probably also supplied the mining centers of the northern
Mezquital Valley and Mexico City. Among the documents of  it is
recorded that the residents of San Mateo carried tomatoes by burro to sell
in Mexico City, while the Hacienda Endo produced pulque for sale in the
market of Tepetitlán.46 According to oral records we have compiled, when
the railroad from the Mezquital Valley to Mexico City was constructed
Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

Published by Duke University Press


6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 62 of 250

Ethnohistory

 Patricia Fournier-García and Lourdes Mondragón

Figure . Hacienda of Santa María Temalatitlán in . Source: AGN, Civil, exp.
, vol. , foja .
. Store . Kneading room . Garden
. Back room . Corral entrance . Oven
. Living room . Corral b. Hayloft
. Entrance . Washbasin . Granary
. Entrance room . Coach house . Bedroom
. Room . Chicken coop . Assistance room
. Kitchen . Chicken corral . Living room
Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

Published by Duke University Press


6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 63 of 250

Ethnohistory

Figure . Ruins of El Gavillero. Drawing by Tatsuno Kazuya.


Small structure: administrator’s house (inferred function)
Elevation of the main house (facade or front)
Round brick feature: threshing floor
Long area of the big house: granary or barn
Small room to the left of the big house: function unknown
Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

Published by Duke University Press


6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 64 of 250

Ethnohistory

 Patricia Fournier-García and Lourdes Mondragón

during the presidency of Porfirio Díaz, both landowners and Indians were
able to make their products available to different areas of central Mexico.

Final Considerations

During the colonial period, the geopolitical structure of the viceroyalty that
created the Indian republics in the Tula and Chapantongo subregions pre-
vented the formation of large latifundios. Although small estates, ranchos,
and haciendas were founded from the beginning, the Indians often rented
or were forced to sell their parts of their communal lands.
The haciendas in the Mezquital Valley were relatively poor in spite of
covering large areas and having permanent water supplies. The exception-
ally poor quality of the land in this semiarid region contributed to their
low levels of productivity. The success of the haciendas depended on the
construction of dams and the appropriation of water supplies, the best irri-
gable lands, and the best grazing lands. It is important to mention that some
haciendas belonging to the Jesuits or the New Spain nobility, like the Conde
de Regla, generated vast incomes because they occupied lands in diverse
and fertile environmental zones, in contrast to those located in the jurisdic-
tion of Tula. In commercial terms, the region was relatively isolated with
products primarily consumed locally, with only small amounts consumed
in mining centers and in Mexico City. Therefore, viewed within the context
of colonial and independent Mexico, the natives, ranchers, and hacendados
of the Mezquital Valley may be considered economically marginal.
Because these haciendas and ranchos dealt with small and, to a lesser
extent, large livestock, resident laborers were few in number, in contrast
to the cereal-producing latifundios. This is one reason why the indigenous
populations preserved many of the traditional elements of pre-Columbian
society. Economically, they continued practicing primarily rainy-season
agriculture, traditional craft production, hunting, and gathering in their
communal lands or neighboring woodlands.47 They maintained a relative
degree of independence as well as preserved a communal and cohesive
social identity. In this manner, many of the essential elements were con-
served in the Otomí way of life. The use of pulque allowed the Otomí to
exist in communities without permanent water sources, although they had
to confront the landowners for the rights to water their livestock and to
look for springs within their lands or in surrounding areas. For this reason
the herds of animals that belonged to the Indians were always small, and
still are, a problem that today is compounded by the lack of pasture land,
money to buy fodder, and constant droughts.
The haciendas in the Tula and Chapantongo subregions were defi-
Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

Published by Duke University Press


6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 65 of 250

Ethnohistory

Haciendas, Ranchos, and the Otomí Way of Life 

nitely marginal to the rest of the latifundio development in New Spain and
Mexico because they lacked the necessary means of production to become
large commercial enterprises. The low quality of the majority of the lands,
as well as the shortage of water in the semiarid environment, prevented the
development of large-scale agriculture and the heavy exploitation of the
indigenous labor force. In spite of the apparent absence of visible means of
production in this region, however, the haciendas still had a certain amount
of success. This success was equal to or surpassed the development attained
by the pre-Hispanic populations in the Mezquital Valley, a region that is
said to have inadequate natural resources and is considered the northern
frontier of Mesoamerica, the land of agave: homeland of the Hñähñü.

Notes

 Archivo General de la Nación (hereafter ), Padrones vol. , foja .


 Libro de las Tasaciones : –, –, –, –, –, –,
–, –, –, –, –, –.
 Instituto Nacional de Antropología, Mexico City, Serie Hidalgo, Archivo
Municipal de Ixmiquilpan, Miscelánea Diversa, foja .
 , Tierras, vol. , exp. , fojas v–v ().
 , Padrones, vol. , fojas v–v ().
 Archivo Parroquial de Tepetitlán (hereafter ), Sección Disciplinar: Serie
Jurídico-Eclesiástica, caja , folder  ().
 , Sección Disciplinar, Serie Status Animarum, caja  ().
 , Mercedes, vol. , exp. , foja  (); vol. , exp. , foja 
(); vol. , foja v (); vol. , fojas v– (); vol. , fojas –
 ().
 Archivo Histórico de la Secretaría de Salubridad y Asistencia (hereafter ),
Fondo Exconvento de Jesús María, Serie Tierras ().
 In  the Jesuit hacienda of Santa Lucía, a large-scale enterprise of the
Compañía de Jesús, which owned extensive areas within the present state of
Hidalgo, received a livestock estancia near Chapantongo as a donation, but it
never produced well due to the poor quality of the land (Konrad : ).
Other documents note that in , the Convent de Jesús María rented an estan-
cia de ganado menor (for small livestock), La Viña, in Chapantongo, with six
thousand head of sheep (, Fondo Exconvento de Jesús María, Serie Tie-
rras []).
 As Mendizabal (: –) has noted, ‘‘the abuses committed by the Spanish
settlers in the appropriation of land, and the damage it caused to the indigenous
peoples . . . [as well as] the raising of [livestock] . . . led to the illegal occupation
of lands, much of which definitely belonged to the indigenous people, who felt
obligated to defend the land they had sown, from this continuous invasion.’’
 , Indios, vol. , exp. , foja v ().
 , Mercedes, vol. , fojas – ().
 , Indios, vol. , exp. , foja  ().
 Among the requests for the extension of the payment period by the tribute-
paying Indians of Tepetitlán are those of  October  (, Indios, vol. ,
Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

Published by Duke University Press


6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 66 of 250

Ethnohistory

 Patricia Fournier-García and Lourdes Mondragón

exp. , fojas v–v []),  April  (, Indios, vol. , exp.
, foja  []), and  February  (, Indios, vol. , exp. ,
fojas – []). In all of these petitions, there is mention of the popula-
tion decrease, caused by epidemics, harvest failure, deaths of animals, and the
emigration of the population.
 , Indios, vol. , exp.  (); exp. , fojas – (). In a docu-
ment from  May  (, Mercedes, vol. , fojas v–v []), the
natives of Tepetitlán asked for permission to sell some rough land from com-
munity property in order to pay tribute. The lands were sold for fifty pesos of
common gold.
 , Indios, vol. , exp. , fojas v–v (); Tierras, vol. , exp. ,
fojas – ().
 , Tierras, vol. , exp. , fs.  ().
 , Indios, vol. , exp. , fojas v–v ().
 , Mercedes, vol. , fojas – ().
 , Mercedes, vol. , fojas ,  ().
 , Tierras, vol. , exp. , foja  (–); vol. , exp. , foja 
(–); vol. , exp. , foja  (–); vol. , exp.  (); ,
Indios, vol. , exp. , fojas v–v (); Archivo del Registro Civil de
Tepetitlán (hereafter ), Hidalgo, México, Nacimientos, vol. , fojas –
(–).
 In , caciques from Sayula, in the jurisdiction of Tetepango, started a suit
against the Hacienda Endo for allegedly taking their land and water and for the
destruction of their houses and ranchos (Notaría Pública No. , Lic. Raul Efren
Sicilia Salgado, Tula de Allende, Hidalgo).
 In , the tenant of a hacienda accused an Indian of stealing maguey plants
and demanded restitution for the act (, Criminal, vol. , exp. , fojas –
 []).
 , Tierras, vol. , exp. , foja  ().
 , Tierras, vol. , exp. , fojas – ().
 , Tierras, vol. , exp. , foja  (–).
 , Criminal, vol. , exp. , fojas – ().
 , Tierras, vol. , exp. er., foja  (–).
 , Indios, vol. , exp. , fojas – ().
 , Mercedes, vol. –, exp. s/n, fojas –v. ().
 , Tierras, vol. , exp. , fs: – ().
 , Indios, vol. , exp. , fojas – ().
 , Padrones, vol. , fojas – ().
 , Indios, vol. , exp. , fojas –v (). This ordinance had the objec-
tive of making the Indians ‘‘favored in their urgent necessities, maintaining for
them an ample fund, which cannot be created unless the expenses of this and
other communities are reformed, thereby complying with what is prevented by
the fourteenth and sixteenth laws of the sixth book, fourth Title, of the Recopila-
ción de Indias, and articles , , and  of the Royal Ordinance’’ (, Indios,
vol. , exp. , foja v []).
 The lands were distributed among the Indians ‘‘in small sections . . . , giving
each family what is necessary in order that they work them to their benefit, and
if some lands are left over after the distribution, these will be put up for rent in
favor of the common good’’ (, Indios, vol. , exp. , foja v []).
Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

Published by Duke University Press


6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 67 of 250

Ethnohistory

Haciendas, Ranchos, and the Otomí Way of Life 

 , Indios, vol. , exp. , foja v ().


 , Sección Disciplinar, Serie Status Animarum, caja , ; , Padrones,
vol. , fojas v–v ().
 Archivo Municipal de Tepetitlán (hereafter ), Hidalgo, México Indepen-
diente, Indiferente General, caja  ().
 , México Independiente, Recaudación de Rentas, caja , folders , , and
 ().
 In , there was a property owner documented among the Indians of Santa
María del Pino who owned a market stall worth  pesos of ‘‘capital from
annual sales indicated by the exactor (of tribute), or by the evaluation commit-
tee’’ (, México Independiente, Recaudación de Rentas, caja s/n, leg. –
[–]).
 , México Independiente, Recaudación de Rentas, caja , folder , fojas ,
; caja s/n, leg. – (–).
 , Civil, vol. , exp. , fojas ,  (). Also, Wobeser : .
 , México Independiente, Indiferente General, caja , f. s/n ().
 A lack of maize during the time of the revolution of  is recorded among the
oral historical records of the community of Santa María del Pino. This was due
to the sale of grain by the haciendas to the Indians, a practice that ceased at the
initiation of the armed conflict (Fournier ).
 , Nacimientos, vol.  (–).
 Among the facts remembered in the oral historical records from Santa María
del Pino, the potters of the community tell that barrel cactus and pigweed were
collected for making tortillas: ‘‘They took with them the things needed for dig-
ging, and they removed the spines, they returned and boiled it with some rock
salt, then ground it together with some nixtamal (cooked maize), stirred it, and
made the tortilla. This was all that there was to eat . . . they brought the pig-
weed . . . gathered it together, and when they arrived, they removed the leaf,
boiled it . . . pressed and ground it, and mixed it with the batter.’’

References

Acuña, René, ed.


 Relaciones geográficas del siglo XVI: México. Tomo I. Mexico City:
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
 Relaciones geográficas del siglo XVI: México. Tomo tercero. Mexico
City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Anderson, Richmond K., Jose Calvo, Gloria Serrano, and George C. Payne
 A Study of the Nutritional Status and Food Habits of Otomi Indians in
the Mezquital Valley of Mexico. American Journal of Public Health :
–.
Benitez, Fernando
 El libro de la infamia. In Los indios de México. Vol. , pp. –.
Mexico City: Editorial Era.
Broda, Johanna
 Las comunidades indígenas y las formas de extracción del excedente:
Epoca prehispánica y colonial. In Ensayos sobre el desarrollo econó-
Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

Published by Duke University Press


6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 68 of 250

Ethnohistory

 Patricia Fournier-García and Lourdes Mondragón

mico de México y América Latina (–). Enrique Florescano,


ed. Pp. –. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Feldman, Lawrence, and A. Guadalupe Mastache
 Indice de documentos sobre el centro de México y cartografía antigua
del Área de Tula. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e
Historia.
Fernández de Reca, Guillermo S.
 Cacicazgos y nobiliario indígena de la Nueva España. Biblioteca
Nacional de México . Instituto Bibliográfico Mexicano. Mexico City:
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Fournier, Patricia
 Etnoarqueología cerámica Otomí: Maguey, pulque y alfarería entre los
Hñähñü del Valle del Mezquital. Ph.D. diss., Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México.
 Simbolismo, modo de vida y etnicidad en arqueología. Paper presented
at the II Coloquio de Arqueología, Mexico City, – March.
Fournier, Patricia, Gerardo Jiménez, and Juan Cervantes
 Proyecto Distrito Alfarero del Valle del Mezquital: Informe técnico de
la primera temporada de trabajos de campo. Manuscript in the Archivo
de la Coordinación Nacional de Arqueología del Instituto Nacional de
Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.
Fournier, Patricia, and Rocio Vargas-Sanders
In press En busca de los ‘‘dueños del silencio’’: Cosmovisión y  antiguo
de las poblaciones Otomíes epiclásicas de la región de Tula. Revista de
Estudios Otopames . Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma
de México.
Gerhard, Peter
 Geografía histórica de la Nueva España: –. Mexico City: Uni-
versidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Hicks, Frederic
 Subject States and Tribute Provinces: The Aztec Empire in the Northern
Valley of Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica : –.
Johnson, Kirsten
 Resourse-use Knowledge among the Otomí Indians of the Mezquital,
México. In National Geographic Society Research Reports, vol. .
P. H. Oehser, J. S. Lea, and N. L. Powars, eds. Pp. –. Washington,
: National Geographic Society.
Konrad, Herman W.
 Una hacienda de los Jesuitas en el México colonial: Santa Lucía, –
. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Lanks, H. C.
 Otomí Indians of the Mezquital Valley, Hidalgo. Economic Geography
: –.
Libro de las tasaciones de los pueblos de la Nueva España
 Mexico City: Archivo General de la Nación.
López, Fernando, Patricia Fournier, and Clara Paz
 Contextos arqueológicos y contextos momento: El caso de la alfarería
Otomí del Valle del Mezquital. Boletín de Antropología Americana :
–.
Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

Published by Duke University Press


6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 69 of 250

Ethnohistory

Haciendas, Ranchos, and the Otomí Way of Life 

Malvido, Elsa, and Miguel Angel Cuenya


 Introducción. In Demografía histórica de México, siglo XVI–XIX. Elsa
Malvido and M. A. Cuenya, eds. Pp. –. Mexico City: Antologías
Universitarias, Instituto Mora-Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.
Melville, Elinor G. K.
 Environmental and Social Change in the Valle del Mezquital, Mexico.
Comparative Studies in Society and History : –.
 A Plague of Sheep: Environmental Consequences of the Conquest of
Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mendizabal, Miguel Othón de
 Evolución económica y social del Valle del Mezquital. In Obras com-
pletas. Vol. , pp. –. Mexico City: Talleres Gráficos de la Nación.
Moreno Toscano, Alejandra
 El siglo de la conquista. In Historia general de México. Vol. , pp. –.
Mexico City: Colegio de México.
Ortiz de Montellano, Bernardo R.
 Aztec Medicine, Health, and Nutrition. New Brunswick, : Rutgers
University Press.
Ortiz Peralta, Rina
 Inexistentes por decreto: Disposiciones legislativas sobre los pueblos de
indios en el siglo XIX. El caso de Hidalgo. In Indio, nación y comu-
nidad en el México del siglo XIX. Antonio Escobar Ohmstede, coord.
Pp. –. Mexico City: Centre d’Etudes Mexicaines et Centraméri-
caines/Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropo-
logía Social.
Parsons, Jeffrey R., and Mary H. Parsons
 Maguey Utilization in Highland Central Mexico. Anthropological
Papers, No. . Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, University of
Michigan.
Paso y Troncoso, Francisco del, ed.
 Códice Mendocino. Mexico City: Editorial Innovación.
Quezada, Noemí
 El Valle del Mezquital en el siglo XVI. Anales de Antropología :
–.
Rubial, Antonio
 El Convento Agustino y la Sociedad Novohispana (–). Mexico
City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Sahagún, Fray Bernardino de
 Historia general de las cosas de Nueva España. Mexico City: Direc-
ción General de Publicaciones del Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y
las Artes.
Simpson, Lesley B.
 Exploitation of Land in Central Mexico in the Sixteenth Century. Ibero-
americana . Berkeley: University of California Press.
Soustelle, Jacques
 La familia Otomí-Pame del México central. Mexico City: Fondo de
Cultura Económica.
Vetancurt, Agustín de
 [] Teatro mexicano: Descripción breve de los sucesos ejemplares
Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

Published by Duke University Press


6817 ETHNOHISTORY / 50:1 / sheet 70 of 250

Ethnohistory

 Patricia Fournier-García and Lourdes Mondragón

históricos y religiosos del Nuevo Mundo de las Indias. Crónica de


la Provincia del Santo Evangelio de México. Menologio Franciscano.
Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa.
Wobeser, Gisela von
 La formación de la hacienda en la epoca colonial. Mexico City: Uni-
versidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Tseng 2003.2.27 07:49

Published by Duke University Press

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi