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/


2/36


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

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


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



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



6/36

Map

2. THE

FIELDS OF

THE

HACIENDA SANTA ANA

ARAGON,

1766-1768

Source:

see

note

11.

67



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

ouweneel 1986 - belc - schedules in hacienda agriculture - aragon & pilares 1765-95

Documents