1 Introduction
The territoryâunderstood as the functional and material natural environment over which a specific control is exercised from the political sphere that regulates access to resources based on power relations1âis presented to us as a palimpsest. It involves jurisdictional overlaps that are sometimes articulated synchronically and sometimes diachronically. Nevertheless, a proper reading of its scope, through written documents and other (ethno)historical sources, can help us understand the processes involved in the different configurations.
This research focuses on the Mixtec sociohistorical space (present-day state of Oaxaca, Mexico) between the 16th and 18th centuries, particularly the space of the ancient señorÃo (lordship) of Tlaxiaco. Some of the characteristics that modulated the production of territory in this space involved the relatively scarce presence of Spaniards, who were more interested in the control of trade than in the exploitation of the land, and the intensity of the señorial (seigniorial) relations that allowed the cacicazgosâ strong survival until the beginning of the 19th century. The latter led to the survival of distinctly indigenous organisational structuresâthe ñuu and its subdivisions and the yuhuitayuâwhich made the jurisdictional and land tenure system more complex. The articulation of this region in different ecological niches forces us to question ourselves about productive activities and access to different spaces by the social actors interrelated in the Mixteca. The main objective of this work is to reveal investigations into various aspects related to the link between señorial relations and land ownership throughout the colonial period, based on what has been observed in the space of the ancient lordship of Tlaxiaco, which occupied different ecological niches. This will allow us to perceive permanence and modifications over time and to detect different strategies deployed by the caciques and the pueblos to consolidate their dominion over the land. What I have discerned in this work will allow us to make future comparisons with what happened in other places in the Mixteca Baja, Alta and Costa, to relate the access and control of natural resources with differentâand changingâprocesses of territorialisation.
After providing the study areaâs political-territorial, social and productive context, I analyse some mechanisms deployed by the caciques during the 16th century to effectively control valuable lands. Next, I reflect on señorial relationsâ âmaskedâ permanence in the 17th and 18th centuries. Finally, I look at the processes of composiciones de tierras (land regularisation) to question the role of the cacicazgo and its relationship with the territory in the late colonial period.
The ideas expressed here are, to some extent, based on the contributions made by Arij Ouweneel and Rik Hoekstra, who, in the 1990s, explained the shift from political-territorial and social articulation based on personal association (Personenverband) to functioning by territorial association (Territorialverband).2 Likewise, they are tributaries of Bernardo GarcÃa MartÃnezâs decades of research on the corporative nature of the pueblos de indios, which to a large extent retained the characteristics of the old señorÃos, as can be seen in the presence of lineages, cacicazgos, terrazgueros (landless renter), tributary systems, and spatial structures, even in colonial times, to varying degrees depending on the territories.3
In the Mixteca, the cacicazgo is a fundamental institution for analysing ownership regimes. Our knowledge about its functioning in different periods is extensive and has allowed an understanding of the relevant dimensions of its political, social, economic and territorial function. A volume coordinated by Margarita Menegus and Rodolfo Aguirre provided us with one of the most panoramic views.4 Not surprisingly, Menegus, one of the great scholars of the cacicazgo, has contributed very original and precise ideas about its structure and territorial implications in the Mixtec sphere that allow me to articulate the study carried out here.5 The investigations of Hildeberto MartÃnez, Patricia Cruz Pazos, and John Chance allow me to compare what happened regarding cacicazgo and ownership in different areas of Puebla. The latter also significantly contributed to the evolution of the Mixtec cacicazgo and land tenure in the late colonial period, which must also be considered.6 For his part, Edgar Mendozaâs vision provides knowledge about changes in ownership rights and señorial relations in the context of composiciones de tierras processes.7
These and other investigations offer a rich general analytical framework. However, as Manuel Hermann points out, case studies on the territorial articulation of Mixtec señorÃos reveal a much more complex picture that prevents us from recognising the validity of a general model.8 The research presented here follows these lines, focusing on the long duration of a señorÃo in which señorial relations, although âmaskedâ, mediated the territorial composition and land tenure until the 18th century.
2 The Mixteca Region and Its Political-Territorial, Social, and Productive Context
The Mixteca, conceived as a socio-historical space, can be considered the heritage territory of the Mixtec ethnolinguistic group, both past and present. It extends through the northwestern portion of the state of Oaxacaâwithin what the official regionalisation considers the Mixteca itselfâthrough the western part of the Sierra Sur region, through the Coast, through the southern fringe of the state of Pueblaâthe so-called Mixteca poblanaâand the northeastern part of Guerreroâthe Montaña region. In addition, the Mixteca was and still is inhabited by other minority ethnic groups, such as the Amuzgos, Triquis, and Chocho-Popolocas, also known as Ngiwas.
Map 5.1
Location of the Mixteca and Differentiated Spaces within it
Own elaboration
Conventionally, three fundamental sub-regions are differentiated to understand the internal articulation of the area: the Mixteca Baja, located in the northwestern sector, also encompassing territories of Puebla and Guerrero; the Mixteca Alta, northeastern and central sector; and the Mixteca de la Costa, to the south, also in a small strip of Guerrero (see Map 5.1). This division was already conceived in a certain way by the ancient inhabitants of this extensive and heterogeneous territory, as shown by the meanings in the Ãudzahui (Mixtec) language recorded by the friars of the 16th century to refer to each of the parts: for example, Ãuniñe, âwarm landâ, referred to the Mixteca Baja, and Ãundaa, âflat landâ, was the plain towards the coast.9 The division between Alta, Baja, and Costa has a clear geographical correlation, defined by the altitude above sea level of the sierras and small intermontane valleys. However, the complex topography of the Sierra Madre del Sur and the north-south development mean that the broad socio-historical space encompasses multiple climatic units, environments and ecosystemsâfrom low, hot, and arid places to high cold valleys and tropical lowlands. Such diversity is an aspect that significantly affected the historical and cultural development of the region and is central to the questions we ask about the ownership regime that operated during the colonial period.10
Archaeologists and ethnohistorians have highlighted some features that appear throughout the area, which can give rise to the recognition of a âshared historyâ.11 Here, I mention only one important constant that concerns political and social organisation: the existence, since the Classic period (400â¯B.C.â950â¯A.D.), of yuhuitayu (lordships or kingdoms) as the predominant political-territorial model in the three Mixtec areas, whose pre-Hispanic history has been reconstructed thanks to the development of archaeological work, the study of pre-Hispanic codices and colonial documentation.12
Let us delve into the indigenous structure of the political-territorial organisation and how it was adapted from the 16th century onwards within the Hispanic juridical order.13 The primary territorial unit of the Mixtecs was the ñuu. The friars of the 16th century noted that ñuu was part of the expressions that referred to physical political-territorial entities, such as âhamletâ, âvillageâ, âtownâ, âterritoryâ, and âplace by townâ, although it also had many other translations related to political and social aspects linked to the territory, such as âcityâ, ñuu canu yucunduta, or âcitizenâ, tay ñuu canu.14 The ñuu was divided into sub-entities that received a different appellative depending on the regional dialectal variant: in the valleys of Teposcolula, Tamazulapan and Tlaxiaco, they used the term siqui; in the vicinity of Yanhuitlán, siña; and in the Mixteca Baja, the concept was dzini. The main Spanish translation was barrio. However, they were also mentioned as colación or parroquia, formed by corporate groups with ethnic and kinship ties, a common origin and shared political and economic relations.15
The most complex political-territorial units responded to the concept of yuhuitayu. Although there are still many questions regarding its precise functioning and historical development, a fundamental characteristic is that it united two ñuu through the marriage of a man (yya) and a woman (yya dzehe) of the ruling lineage, a position they held hereditarily. Each represented his or her respective ñuu, which continued to enjoy autonomy, and his or her stately house, which comprised the palace, lands, relatives, and dependents associated with a lineage. In addition, the yuhuitayuâs government was associated with the toniñeâhereditary authorityâand the tniñoâduty and responsibility towards the human group governed by the lords. Thus, the yuhuitayu is presented to us as a political-territorial entity and a political arrangement created by dynastic alliances.16
From the 16th century onwards and under the Hispanic normative order, the seats of the yuhuitayu became known as cabeceras (head towns). However, not infrequently, they were assimilated as sujetos (subject towns) according to the status acquired in the territorial reorganisation. Their rights, lands, and other patrimonial elements were assimilated with the concepts of kingdom, lordship, or cacicazgo. Some researchers emphasise that Mixtec political-territorial categories were intertwined with social ones, as they were under the powerful influence of kinship.17
The yya tnuhu or yya toniñe, understood as king or lord, was the head of the yuhuitayu hierarchy. In addition, a group of nobles or principals, the tay toho, accompanied the supreme ruler in his work. These two groups controlled the positions of power and authority, productive plots, natural resources, modes of production, distribution of goods and services, and ceremonial institutions. In addition, they were paid tribute, daha, and received personal services from the inhabitants of the yuhuitayu, called tay ñuu or tay yucu, the common people, and the tay situndayu, the terrazgueros. In return, these people received protection, ceremonial patronage and usufruct rights for their cultivated land.
The institution of the cacicazgo was established in the 16th century and recognised the rights of the pre-Hispanic natural chiefs or lords of the different areas of New Spain and other members of the Hispanic monarchy. A very general idea leads us to consider the caciques and cacicas as mediating figures between the Spanish administration and the indigenous society in the Indian towns, where they maintained their rights and privilegesâland and terrazgo, market rights, tribute, movable and immovable property, and inheritance rights, among others.18 In this way, the cacicazgoâunderstood as the exercise of a particular jurisdictionâconsolidated a power group that had a long place in the colonial political apparatus in the Mixteca and continued to exist, until the first moments of independent Mexico, as a significant landowner.19
A principal mechanism of cacicazgo integration and maintenance, along with other coercive and voluntary forces, was the creation of alliances between the heads or direct heirs of the various royal lineages sealed by marriage. Also, as Ronald Spores has pointed out, this strategy was essential in the creation of a dense social, political, and economic network that linked numerous towns and political domains, building bridges between different geographical zones, from the tropical lowlands to the valleys in the highlands and cold lands, which contributed to the diversification of natural resources and agricultural products available for consumption within the lordship or for insertion into regional markets.20 Thus, in the Mixteca, the Mesoamerican tradition of interwoven land control by the lordships is evident to such a degree that, in some specific areas, this control was conceptualised as an âarchipelagoâ.21
A significant social group linked to the cacicazgo was the tay situndayu or terrazgueros, who paid rent for occupying land, tilled plots, and performed personal services. So, their condition combined economic rent and the señorial ties of personal dependence. Thus, using a distinction typical of the ius commune, the cacique had dominio eminente (the extension of a governmental entity) over the land throughout his señorÃo, which allowed him to exercise his jurisdictional authority over his terrazgueros. At the same time, he had patrimonial lands over which he exercised dominio directo as part of his casa señorial and ceded dominio útil to the terrazgueros.22
This panorama of indigenous relations and land tenure was forced to adapt, at least nominally, to the traditional European scheme that was intended to be homogeneous throughout the viceroyalty and that distinguished between the settlement lands, community lands (distinguishing between propios, those that served to cover common expenses through exploitation or leasing, and comunales, those that were subject to common distribution), neighbourhood lands, and particular lands. In many parts of the Mixteca, the terrazgueros were exceedingly numerous. However, according to Menegus, the Crown tried to introduce them into the list of regular taxpayers through the creation of Indian republics and the granting of mercedes de tierras during the 16th and early 17th centuries. There is evidence of the creation of pueblos de indios within the territory of the caciques: apparently, the republic was given only an âurbanâ hull for its settlement and its propios, omitting those of common distribution, so that for their subsistence they continued to depend on the caciqueâs lands and the payment of a terrazgo, personal service, and obedience.23
These characteristics lead me to emphasise the importance of the cacicazgo as an administrator of the local economies through the possession of land and the management of the labour force of their terrazgueros, which allowed them to build important family patrimonies and to be critical parts of the Oaxacan economic structure.24 One hypothesis put forward by several authors is that this situation could be maintained for longer in the Mixteca than in other areas of New Spain due to the mediating need of the caciques in a region where the presence of Spaniards was not as intense as in other places.25 The land, in a rugged orographic environment with hardly any room for valleys of considerable extension, was not a strong attraction for the Spaniards, who preferred to dedicate themselves to commercial activity through the hoarding of specific networks and the management of herds of small livestock that would be inserted, beginning in the 17th century, into the transhumance routes from the Mixteca Baja to the Coast (and back) through the system of haciendas volantes.26
I established the general characterisation presented in this section based on the work accumulated over decades of research that focused on different areas of the Mixteca. However, I believe that the case studies allow us to understand, in depth, the functioning and dynamics of each señorÃo, cacicazgo, república de indios, or cabecera-sujeto complex (not synonymous, but related categories), in and of themselves and concerning each other. Moreover, work focused on different particular spaces will eventually allow us to detect possible subregional variations in the ownership regimes. Hypothetically, diversifications may be due to circumstances related to the models established in señorial relations (different ways of conceiving the yuhuitayu), differences in the social management of natural resource exploitation and agricultural activities in different ecological niches, and local responses to the policy of land tenure regularisation under the Hispanic normative order.
In the space of the ancient señorÃo of Tlaxiaco, whose heart is located in the central Mixteca Alta, but which also extends into the environments of the Mixteca Baja, to the north, and from the tropical lands to Costa, to the south, I have detected some particular situations that I contrast below with what happened in other entities in the Mixteca.
3 Mechanisms for Expansion and Control of Space by the Cacicazgo
Thanks to the information contained in the visit and demarcation of the jurisdiction of Tlaxiaco carried out in 1599 to implement the congregación of its pueblos, in addition to other previous information, we know that the early colonial señorÃo of Tlaxiaco extended over a space of approximately 2,000 kilometres squared that unfolds from north to south in a strip of 90 kilometres and from east to west along 65 kilometres, and covered the territory occupied today by 23 municipalities.27 Likewise, it extended over 12 sub-regionsâtaking a delimiting criterion enunciated by archaeologists28âthat in pre-Hispanic times housed autonomous settlements of considerable size that could have been linked under the same political-territorial system and where several ethnic groups coexisted and interacted in the political, economic and social spheres: Mixtecsâas the majorityâTriquisâas the minorityâand Nahuas.
In environmental terms, the predominant meteorological phenomena in the Mixtecaâcold air inflows, alisios winds, jet streams, and cyclones originating in the Isthmus of Tehuantepecâcombined with the enormous topographic complexity and differences in latitude in the space over which Tlaxiaco extended its domain, generate a tremendous climatic diversity. The climates range from steppe in the extreme north and west of the jurisdiction to hot in the extreme south, passing through semi-warm, temperate, and semi-cold; according to humidity levels, there are humid, semi-humid, and semi-dry areas. In the 16th century, this diversity was noted by Spanish visitors as cold, temperate, and warm temples. The description recorded by Dominican friar Fray Francisco de Burgoa in the 17th century gives a good account of the ecosystemic diversity of the jurisdiction:
Map 5.2
República de indios of Tlaxiaco in 1599
Own elaboration
[â¦] The kingdom had more than a hundred leagues of traversing, with so many different kinds of climates (temples), that leaving the region of snow, one goes down to the region of fire where the vermin are as poisonous as countless flying bugs, biting mosquitoes, worms, spiders, vipers, and ferocious tigers, without other noxious animals at every step, the cliffs are intractable, the cliffs are very high, opaque, and shady, because of the groves of oaks, pines, and leafy cedars that cover them, the rivers are very fast-flowing, they breed very fine trout, and other beautiful fish, because the waters are very thin, and cold, that rush down from the mountains [â¦]. In the mountains there are peaches, figs, pears, and apples, which are very tasty, and in the lowlands, citrons, oranges, limes, grapefruit, lemons, pineapples, bananas, mameyes, and other fruits of great value, and in rare meadows some wheat is sown.29
This complex ancient señorÃo, turned into a cabecera-sujeto complex recognised as república de indios by the Spanish authorities, managed to maintain its political and territorial integration until the end of the 17th century, when the first fragmentation occurred with the separation of San Mateo Peñasco in 1687, becoming the new cabecera of several surrounding villages (Map 5.2).30 I must clarify that the territorial extension over which the república de indios stretched and, beforehand, which we can think of as the jurisdictional space of the cacicazgo of Tlaxiaco, housed, in turn, several minor cacicazgos in some of the subject pueblos. That is to say, there was an internal game of hierarchies that complicated the understanding of the territorial expressions of the loyalties of the terrazgueros with their respective lords. In other words, understanding the juxtaposition of rights over land and the subsequent territorial scope of the jurisdictionsâof the pueblos de indios, the cacicazgo of Tlaxiaco, and the others loyal to itâis still an issue that remains unsolved in this Chapter.31
We presume that, in the 15th century, Tlaxiaco had a complex or segmentary señorial structure.32 This implies the existence of five places with their own political-territorial personalityâfive ñuuâthat was ultimately led by the same ruler, perhaps in the form of a confederation, as seen in particular on the back of the Codex Bodley.33 The dynamics of interaction with foreign groups since the late 15th century drove the centralisation of power around the Tlaxiaco valley settlement. They may have privileged a particular branch of a lineage over others. The yuhuitayu of Tlaxiaco and some other neighbours established a temporary or circumstantial alliance with Culhua-Mexica during the last third of the 15th century. After the military intervention by Motecuhzoma Xocoyotzin, the ñuu of the Tlaxiaco valley was established as the tribute collecting centre of a tributary province that encompassed another important neighbouring yuhuitayu, that of Achiutla. We believe this event contributed to marking the importance of the ñuu settled in the Tlaxiaco valley and boosted both spatial and political hierarchisation. Once the conquest and pacification of this section of the Mixteca Alta had been consummated, the distribution of the encomienda took place.
The exercise of jurisdiction over the natives by the first encomendero, MartÃn Vázquez, may have contributed to the territorial delimitation of the colonial yuhuitayu and strengthened the political centrality of the valley of Tlaxiaco. In a third instance, the arrival first of the secular clergyâaccompanying the encomendero and under the auspices of the first bishop of Antequera (present-day Oaxaca de Juárez), Juan López de Zárateâand soon after of the Dominican friars, plus the construction of their conventual house, served to agglutinate the population at the bottom of the valley. This situation happened due to the policy of congregations promoted by Viceroy Don Luis de Velasco, the Elder, in the 1550s.34 We believe that the inhabitants not only did not put up resistance to the junta, but also firmly requested it from the Spanish authorities due to the difficulties in maintaining the previous productive systemsânotably, the cultivations in terracesâcaused by the drastic demographic drop and the attractiveness of the commercial activities boosted by the passage of the camino real (royal road) that connected the Mixteca with the coast. The establishment of Tlaxiaco as the head of the pueblo de indios and the subordination of the other ñuu that made up the yuhuitayu as subject towns must have privileged the ruling lineage in the valley and this gave rise to a powerful colonial cacicazgo, represented in the 16th century by Don Felipe de Saavedra and his daughter, MarÃa de Saavedra.35
Doña MarÃa, following the mandates left by her father in his will, married her first cousin, Don Gabriel de Guzmán, then heir to the cacicazgos of Yahuitlánâanother tremendous political and economic centreâand Achiutla. This union sealed an alliance between two rich señorÃos and made their caciques, in all probability, the most powerful of their time. Unfortunately, Doña MarÃa died without descendants in the mid-1590s. After some years of litigation, the lands belonging to Doña MarÃaâs cacicazgo passed into the hands of the republic of Tlaxiaco. The argument put forward by the cabildo was that, although the cacica Doña MarÃa had not left a will before her death, she had stipulated that her property should fall into the possession of the republic, which the Real Audiencia finally confirmed.36
A lawsuit filed in 1717, precisely because of the occupation of the lands of a livestock estancia that had been granted in merced to the cacique Don Francisco de Guzmán in the 16th century, allows us to see how the common people and the republic of Tlaxiaco confronted those who pretended to claim possession of lands that were previously associated to the cacicazgo, as Doña Manuela Pimentel y Guzmán de Achiutla did.37 In the 18th century, claims also came from some members of the lineage of the caciques of Copala and Chicahuaxtla (Triqui enclaves), but what we have evidence of is that the governor and principals of Tlaxiaco actively defended the possessions that they considered to belong to the commons and republic and not to any cacicazgo.38 I believe this exciting circumstance shows the survival of old señorial relationships that remained âmaskedâ in the eyes of the Spanish justice system, as I will discuss in the following section.39
From what I have explained so far, it can be shown that there was a complex juxtaposition of land rights in the Mixteca, as the Crown, under its jurisdictional superiority, recognised the land rights exercised by both the repúblicas de indiosâafter their formation and recognition in the mid-16th centuryâand the cacicazgos. These rights overlapped in space. In exercising their jurisdiction, we believe the caciques used strategies in the 16th century based on pre-Hispanic times to expand and consolidate their land holdings, which led to conflicts with other cacicazgos and Indian republics.
Both the cacique Don Felipe and his daughter, Doña MarÃa, sent families of terrazgueros to settle and control lands in strategic locations from an environmental point of view. The enclaves were considered barrios by the Spanish authorities, even though they were very distant from the cabecera. We cannot dwell on the details of the rich information contained in over 600 pages generated by the lawsuits and complaints between the terrazgueros and the towns surrounding the places where they settled. However, below I provide a sequence and some relevant data.
The natives of Atoyaquillo, today San Juan Teita, located southeast of Tlaxiaco, accused the cacique and principals of Tlaxiaco of having entered their lands in the places called Yosonuma and Acatlixco. We are still determining the date on which this occupation took place. However, in 1567 Don Felipe and other principals complained against the Indians of Atoyaquillo for having broken the varas of justice of three topiles (bailiffs) when they accompanied a group of macehuales (commoners) who were cleaning the access paths to the lands. This act was a profound symbol of not recognising the authority of Tlaxiaco on the lands they claimed to be theirs.40
In 1579, when Doña MarÃa was already the cacica, the principals of Tlaxiaco accused those of Atoyaquillo and their sujetos of having entered their lands, already being tilled, and of having built houses and a church without authorisation. For that reason, they demanded the payment of a tribute to the cabecera of Tlaxiaco. Each one of the parties involved presented more than 60 witnesses, and the principals of Tlaxiaco accused Atoyaquillo of having bribed and intoxicated those on their side, so additional testimonies were requested. The first sentence, given on 14 November 1581, favoured Tlaxiaco. The Indians who settled irregularly in the lands of the two places would have to recognise Tlaxiaco as their cabecera, or they would have to return to their places of origin. Then, when Atoyaquillo requested that the ruling be revoked, MarÃa Girón appeared, who claimed to be an encomendera of the town, stating that these lands had belonged to them since time immemorial. After hearing more witnesses, a new sentence in June 1582 finally gave justice to Atoyaquillo. The natives settled in Yosonuma, and Acatlixco had to come with their services and tributes to this cabecera. Tlaxiaco, not satisfied with the sentence, requested its revocation and argued that before the same natives of Atoyaquillo had been under the subjection of Tlaxiaco, to whom they paid tribute. The people of Atoyaquillo were accused of rebellion for not answering the accusations.41
In 1583, witnesses summoned from Teposcolula were accused of perjury when they testified against Tlaxiaco.42 A year later, the cacica Doña MarÃa established a new lawsuit against the cacique of Atoyaquillo, Don Felipe de Santiago, and his republic officers.43 The fight for these lands was fully justified since they were located in a small canyon in a low and temperate areaâat almost 800 metres above sea level less than Tlaxiacoânext to a large river, which allowed the development of irrigation techniques and the production of crops typical of this milieu.
Another front of the conflict took place in Malinaltepec, present-day San Bartolomé Yucuañe, some 25 kilometres east of Tlaxiaco, located on a vital communication route with the space of what was once the lordship from which the legitimacy of the Mixtec dynasties emanated, Tilantongo. In 1590, the cacica Doña MarÃa sent ten married couples of terrazgueros to found a âbarrioâ called Ãuuyucu. Thirteen years later, the authorities of Malinaltepec accused four Indians of not following the doctrine nor the call of the communal works in favour of Malinaltepec about five years before, in addition to disturbing other families and trying to convince them to recognise the cacica of Tlaxiaco as their legitimate señora. In the file, it is openly stated that the lands where the couples settled belonged to the cacicazgo of Tlaxiaco. However, the Indians worked for the church and the común de la república of Malinaltepec when they were requested to do so.44
Finally, I believe that this strategy could have also been implemented long before in the south of the jurisdiction, in the coveted natural tropical environment of the Cañada de Yosotiche,45 and also in the limits between San Felipe Tindaco, a pueblo sujeto to Tlaxiaco, and the neighbouring señorÃos of Yolotepec and Teozacoalco. In 1545, the estancia46 of San Felipe Tindaco filed a lawsuit against Teozacoalco for the lands of Nixtepetongo or Taxcotepetongo and the estancia called Uxitlan (Huixitlán), where five families had been settled.47
Unlike what has been observed in other New Spain spaces regarding the distribution of lands to terrazgueros associated with señorÃos, we do not see the operation of the emphyteutic census in the cases presented here.48 In this case, we consider that this was not a land distribution but an occupation strategy using the traditional link between the terrazgueros, the tay situndayu, and the lords, the yya.
As indicated earlier, the indigenous political-territorial articulation was closely linked to the social. The axis was the recognition of the authority of the yya, rulers endowed with sacredness. This circumstance leads some researchers to propose that, although in pre-Hispanic times there must have been a specific territorial base of the yuhuitayu, there were no precise geographical boundaries, and the fundamental binding element of the vassals of a lordship was the tribute.49 This assertion can be criticised considering what has been said above about the entreveramiento of territories. The señorÃos were aware of the territorial scope of their jurisdiction and their limits, which did not compromise the principle of the personal association of the inhabitants with the lord of the ruling lineage and his casa señorial. The conflicts shown here, which arise from the creation of settlements of terrazgueros for the occupation of strategic spaces, seem to show us a transitional scenario between traditional Mixtec and Hispanic socio-territorial practices, which were, by the way, also in a moment of reconfiguration of their normative order.
There is an additional analytical element that reinforces the relevance of señorial relations. From reviewing the Ãudzahui terms in the colonial documentation, Kevin Terraciano observed that the boundaries between the two kinds of peasants considered commoners were blurred. Thus, the use of the concept ñandahiâa commoner, who owned modest plots of land associated with a household, paid tribute, and was subject to rotating workâand tay situndayuâterrazguero, landless renter, attached to the aniñe, or house of the rulersâseems to indicate that, in both cases, their links with the casas señoriales constituted a social characteristic of great importance and that it is possible that there was mobility from one status to the other.50 The study of their dynamics concerning land indeed points to the same thing.
4 Land and âMaskedâ Señorial Relations
Many of the spatial resettlements inaugurated the legal establishment of pueblos de indios. Here, I understand this concept, widely extended in the historiography of the last 30 years, as the Hispanic political-administrative arrangement based on the organisation of the indigenous señorÃo and formed by the Indian political society called the república de indios. One of its essential defining characteristics was its corporative character, concretely expressed through a cabildo of peninsular inspiration made up of different positions or offices, which aimed to centralise the political and administrative functions of the towns in the place designated as âheadâ. However, the dependencies consigned as barrios or estancias also had representation, generally through the alcaldes or regidores.51 This scene was the ideal projection planned by the Spanish administration. However, it must be said that, in practice, most of the cabildos did not conform precisely to the parameters indicated and that, outwardly, they masked practices and forms of operation rooted in the indigenous tradition. That is why it is difficult to provide a generalisable definition.
A royal decree of 9 October 1549 urged the establishment of order in the towns through their inhabitantsâ congregation and the formation of their republic bodies.52 Menegus interprets the lists of appraisals for the salaries of república officers in the Mixteca to mean that in the last third of the 16th century, repúblicas de indios were already established and functioning in most of the important population centres. However, the positions and their functions were established hand in hand with establishing âorden y policÃaâ in the pueblos.53 In particular, the appraisal for Tlaxiaco was made in 1578.54
In the Mixteca, unlike many places that were part of the Culhua-Mexica and Purepecha-Tarasco empires, the persistence of elements of traditional native government was much more intense and visible. The hereditary rulers were integrated into the system of government with full functions; the Spaniards soon realised that this delegation to traditional leaders could guarantee the proper functioning of the colonial enterprise due to the extraordinary effectiveness of the local autonomy that prevailed in the region.55 Thus, during the first decades of the cabildoâs functioning, it was common for the caciques to occupy the position of governor.56 From approximately 1560, once salaries and the annual elective systemâwith frequent re-electionâwere regulated, until approximately the 18th century, the principals occupied the most critical positions because effective suffrage was restricted to the highest-ranking males.57 In other words, the macehualización58 of the indigenous cabildo occurred late in the Mixteca. One explanation provided by Rodolfo Pastor is based on the fact that the demographic crises, which worsened at the end of the 16th century, inevitably had an impact on the salaries of the officials of the republic, which decreased and even ceased to be paid on some occasions; then, the economic weight of the positions was only sustainable for the caciques and principals who had already started economic enterprises related, above all, to livestock raising, which allowed them to keep their privileged positions in the cabildos for a more extended period.59 The Mixtec terminology used to refer to the positions also reveals the equating of the rank of a hereditary lord with that of the governor, as shown in a 1681 document in which the nobles of the siña of Ayusi referred to the governor of Yanhuitlán as yya toniñe gobernador (lord ruler governor).60
A strategy used during the 16th century to preserve the noble character of the cabildo members was to recruit as candidates for the governorship other caciques or principals who exercised their power in the constituent parts dependent on the cabecera, with whom they probably possessed kinship ties.61 In Tlaxiaco, we can observe that, since the last third of the 16th century, the governorship was already separated from the function of the cacique. However, we can maintain that, at least until the first third of the 17th century, nobles occupied it. This was the case when Don Baltasar de Chávez, cacique of San Juan Pipioltepecâcurrently San Juan ÃumÃâone of its subject towns, occupied the position of governor on repeated occasions, starting in 1581; Don Baltasar probably alternated in the position with the husband of the cacica Doña MarÃa, Don Francisco, cacique of Yanhuitlán, who appears as governor of Tlaxiaco in 1594.62
We can observe in this last fact a gender circumstance that separates the functioning of the institutions of the cacicazgo and the government of the pueblos, depending on whether the Mixtec or Spanish normative order is followed. The Mixtec models of lordship inheritance, which can be traced back to the 11th century in the historical-genealogical records expressed in the codices, determined that the transfer of power was carried out by bilateral descent (relatives on the motherâs and fatherâs side are on the same plane of importance) and in strict endogamy of royal lineage. Within the yuhuitayu, the ruling couple had to possess royal dignity, each in their own right, and thus, in the 16th century, women were recognised as legitimate cacicas. The men they married acquired the title of cacique of their places of origin and, with it, the power to defend before the courts the goods and privileges of the cacicazgo. If instead they married another cacique, they became recognised as cacicas of the lordships of their husbands. However, although the virilocality prevailed after the nuptials, the cacicas retained their lordships and the children in common could inherit the titles of both parents. There is no complete consensus today as to whether the male line was privileged in succession; furthermore, the great diversity of Mixtec cacicazgos shows us that inheritance did not continuously operate by descent but that it was collaterally accepted (people who have a common ancestor, without being descended from each other), and nor was primogeniture always used.63 What is clear is that the Hispanic civil and ecclesiastical authorities recognised the dignity, possessions, and prerogatives of Mixtec cacicas until the 19th century.
Despite their recognition as indigenous authorities through inheritance, women were excluded from holding public positions in the government structure sanctioned by the Hispanic normative order, that is, in the cabildo. However, their son or another male relative could, although without full guarantees of being elected, so the resource used on some occasions was that the cacicasâ husbands would serve as governors in the cabeceras of their wives. This was the case, as just mentioned, when Don Francisco occupied the position in Tlaxiaco when Juan de Guzmán y Velasco became governor of Tataltepec through his marriage to the cacica Doña Inés de Zárate, or when Diego de Mendoza, cacica Catalina de Peraltaâs husband, occupied the position in Teposcolula.64
Unlike what happened in other significant enclaves of the Mixteca, from the beginning of the 17th century Tlaxiaco did not have figures who held the title of cacique or cacica as such, but this did not prevent them from maintaining for a time what we can identify as certain señorial relationships woven in the time of the cacique Don Felipe. Doña MarÃa died without descendants in the mid-1590s. After some years of litigation, the república of Tlaxiaco managed to take over the cacicazgoâs lands, and they became community lands as propios. The cabildo argued that, although the cacica had not left a will before her death, she stipulated that her goods should pass to the república, which the Real Audiencia finally confirmed.65 Sometime before, in 1581, the cacica Doña MarÃa had sold or donated some productive lands to the convent of Tlaxiaco.66 However, among many other events, in 1717, the cacica of Santa Catarina (former dependency of Achiutla), Doña Manuela Pimentel y Guzmán and, later, in 1779, Don MartÃn José de Villagómez, Guzmán y Pimentel de la Cruzâcacique of Acatlán, Petlalcingo, Silacayoapan, Huajuapan, Yanhuitlán, and many other townsâclaimed for themselves the cacicazgo of Tlaxiaco. Nevertheless, the commoners and the república stood firm in defence of the valuable lands that had been transferred to them in the past.67
Two arguments incline us to think that the cuerpo de república of Tlaxiaco maintained its noble status and managed the lands of the commons, with a strong sense of lordship, for a long time. First, we find that San Juan Ãumà was the seat of a minor cacicazgo that extended to neighbouring pueblos and recognised, without apparent hostility, the category of pueblo sujeto to Tlaxiaco. However, in 1599, it had 300 tributaries, only 62 less than Tlaxiaco, and constituted, by far, the second most populated place in the jurisdiction; besides, it was the pueblo that, like its cabecera, claimed to enjoy more leagues of land in contour.68 The Chávez family held the cacicazgo until the 18th century and repeatedly appeared as occupying the governorship and other positions in the cabildo of Tlaxiaco.69 We can hypothesise that they were part of Don Felipeâs kin.
The second argument, closely related to the first, has to do with the settlement of another sujeto named San Antonio Nduaxico in a place recognised as part of the patrimonial lands of the cacique Don Felipe. Something relevant is that, around 1550, in an even more complex panorama of political-territorial subordinations, Nduaxico was sujeto to ÃumÃ.70 One of the versions of his will (a transcription in Mixtec and a translation into Spanish made in 1749) was inserted into a lawsuit from 1801 to 1826 about lands between the natives of San Antonio Nduaxico and those of San Juan ÃumÃ. In this document, originally written in 1573, Don Felipe stated that the lands where San Antón Nduaxico was settled belonged to his cacicazgo, and so he left them to Melchor López and Mateo Cocuaa. He confirmed this inheritance in a second part of the will, listing a series of milpas and orchards by their Mixtec names and ordering that they not be taken away from those two men.71
This critical link that Tlaxiaco had with the northern part of its jurisdiction could have been the background of two mancomunidad (association) agreements established at the end of the 16th century and in the middle of the 18th century. In 1594, on the one hand, the governor and principals of Tlaxiaco, on behalf of the natives of their barrios and estancias sujetas and, on the other hand, Don Francisco, cacique of Yanhuitlán and Tlaxiaco and Achiutla (by marriage), established an agreement that obligated them to pay 206 pesos of gold and three tomines to a merchant resident in Yanhuitlán for some goods that the cacique had taken from his store to satisfy the needs of the place where they signed the agreement, the estancia of San Pedro Mártir Yucuxaco.72 This pueblo was part of the cacicazgo that the Chávez family held in San Juan Ãumà and other pueblos sujetos until the beginning of the 18th century, as noted before.73
In the 18th century, the basis of the old agreements began to fracture, partly concerning the process of composiciones de tierras. A lawsuit arose between the república of Tlaxiaco and the cacique of ÃumÃ, Don Pedro de Chávez, after he leased some lands in Santo Domingo Yosoñama to introduce livestock, under the argument that they were part of his cacicazgo.74 This confrontation produced two results: the disregard of the lineage of the caciques of Ãumà and the creation of a contract of a mancomunidad agreement. This agreement obliged Tlaxiaco to assume the ascription of the lands of Yosoñama to ÃumÃ, as long as they evicted the tenant at the end of the fraudulent contract that had subscribed theânow consideredâspurious cacique, and that the lands were tilled and used for the maintenance of the community.75 We can assume, therefore, that the lands were propios.
The essence of the two mancomunidad agreements is that the parties freely obligated themselves to execute something. In the first case, everyone assumed themselves as principal debtors to pay a debt. In the second, the mancomunidad was established under the following formula that appeals to a waiver, which means that each signatory is responsible for the total of the debt or the extent of the commitment: â[â¦] juntos de man común la voz de uno y cada uno de por sà y por el todo uno solidamente con expresa renunciación de las leyes de duobus reis devendi y la authentica presente hoc ita de fideisoribus y las demás de la mancomunidad [â¦]â.76
I develop a deeper analysis of the implications of different types of mancomunidad agreements (especially those under which land leases were made) in a work currently in progress. However, here I want to highlight what Yanna Yannakakis pertinently observes about them: they reflect legally binding bonds of mutual obligation around a common interest rather than regulating the economic transactions typical of contracts, in which one party performs something in order to receive something else from the other party.77 In this way, the mancomunidad agreements reproduce, in a certain way, the socio-political relations and intercommunity obligations woven within the ancient señorÃo.
5 Land Acquisitions and Upstart Caciques
Finally, I will look at the process of composiciones de tierras in the 18th century to observe how the cacicazgo continued to be a source of legitimacy before the Crown to mediate rights over land in the Mixteca.
The first four royal decrees of composiciones and bienes realengos were issued on 1 November 1591, to regularise possessions after the return of lands considered uncultivated (on which the Crown exercised its royalties) and those that were occupied without authentic deeds.78 The common lands of the pueblos de indios, as well as the lands of the Spanish cities and towns, were left out of this examination.79 Through these dispositions, the land could be redistributed again or continue in the hands of those who held it in exchange for payment. These composiciones had, fundamentally, individual characters. Later, in 1643 and 1674, the collective composición was encouraged in highly productive areas with a strong Spanish presence. The lands in question, occupied individually, were not rigorously measured one by one, but deeds were issued after large collective payments had been made.80
Beginning in 1692, with the creation of the Superintendencia del Beneficio y Composición de Tierras, under the Cámara y Junta de Guerra del Real Consejo de Indias, the scope of the composición process was extended to indigenous areas. This organism was created due to the extensive irregularities detected in the processes, especially between 1660 and 1674. In each Audiencia, one Juzgado Privativo de Tierras y Aguas was appointed, and the ecclesiastical corporations and Indian towns were compelled to componer (regularize) their lands.81 Thus, a long and complex process began in the Mixteca that led the caciques and pueblos to request composición through the presentation of the mercedes granted during the 16th century and by attesting to the legitimacy of the cacicazgos and the immemorial possession of the land.82
The royal decrees issued in 1692, 1696, 1707, 1717, 1754, and 1766 set the general pattern for composiciones in the Mixteca, which, according to the analyses of Mendoza and Menegus, took three forms: requests from a single pueblo, from pueblos united with their caciques and from two or more pueblos united to componer jointly. However, a previous royal decree, dated 4 June 1687, also contributed to the alteration of the Mixtec agrarian structure by distinguishing between the lands belonging to the cabecera and those of the pueblos sujetos and/or barrios, allowing the granting of 600 varas for each cardinal direction to previously pueblos sujetos.83 Carrera Quezada perceives in this provision the legal recognition of a minimum territorial basis for the bienes de comunidad, which later turned into an argument used by some sujetos to promote the separation of their respective cabeceras and constitute their own repúblicas de indios.84
The numerous provisionsâboth royal decrees issued by the king and his Royal Council and decrees and edicts issued by viceroyalty officials, such as the juez privativo de tierras y aguasâgave way to a high degree of casuistry regarding the execution of the composiciones based on the diversity of situations in which the repúblicas and cacicazgos found themselves. In the 18th century, many lawsuits were developed between cacicazgos and pueblos, between caciques, between cabeceras and sujetos, and between the sujetos themselves. As Menegus emphasises, in many cases, the composiciones ended the territorial unity between the lords and the pueblos. This led to the disintegration of the cacicazgo as a result of the composiciones carried out by its terrazgueros.85 As we have seen, the cacique possessed jurisdiction over the land due to the legal endorsement of the condition of the lord by lineage; he was also protected by the recognition, as such, by the indigenous people and ceded in the condition of usufruct certain arable, pasture and grazing lands in exchange for a terrazgo, generally governed by the force of custom. At the time of the composiciones, the legal figure wielded by the pueblos was that of possession, described as âimmemorialâ and âpeacefulâ.
Manuel Bastias Saavedra emphasises that the institution of possession is the best way to understand land relations in early Hispanic America.86 His proposal is based on transcending the anachronism of thinking about the derecho indiano based on the power emanating from the monarch and the division between public and private law attributed to Roman law and framing it within the broad normative universe of the ius commune. In this broad framework that operated for centuries, the idea of aequitas sets the tone for understanding that the functions of justice and the establishment of laws correspond to the natural order of things and the natural power of communities to regulate themselves. Accordingly, he argues that:
Possession was therefore not the purely factual act of taking hold of a thing; instead, it was a specific legal relationship in which a title was generated through consolidated practices and it was a distinct categoryâdifferent not only from dominion (señorÃo), but also from other forms of tenure.87
Possession, insofar as it implies a legal relationship, made it possible for the terrazgueros to go from holding peaceful possession for time immemorial to obtaining a property deed from the composición of the land.88 In this process, the usufruct itself does not occupy a central place in the possession since, in the logic of the latter, the one who occupies on behalf of another does not gain possession over the thing; what is relevant is the very intention of the terrazgueros to be owners of the land through their practice consolidated over time.89
On the other hand, some caciques, being aware of the possibility of dispossession to which they could be subjected, from the second half of the 17th century, tried to protect their lands. In these cases, the provisiones reales as a figure for legal protection were instruments used in later composiciones. In other cases, when there were no previous deeds to show before the Spanish authorities, memorias de linderos were drawn up, which had to be recognised without contradiction by a series of witnesses, generally from neighbouring places.90 This is precisely the scenario that we find in some towns around San Mateo Peñasco, an important pueblo sujeto to Tlaxiaco until 1687, when it managed to separate and become a cabecera in its own right, bringing together the neighbouring settlements.91 We can observe in this case a circumstance that calls our attention: the sujetos were covered by a ânewâ cacicazgo that mediated their requests.92
In April 1858, the alcalde of San AgustÃn Tixihii (Tlacotepec) requested the issuing of a protocolisation and testimony of the composición titles made in 1707 due to the significant deterioration of the document and the serious risk of loss. The copy informs us that the composición was carried out under the protection of the Royal Decree of 30 October 1692, which coercively imposed the composición process and strengthened the control over the lands.93 The alcalde mayor of the Tonalá and Silacayoapan mines was empowered to supervise the composición because in many Mixtec demarcations there were royal lands and others that were being possessed in excess, without a deed and with other vices.94 Under this, Don Pablo de Castro y Morales appeared. He declared to be cacique and Principal of San AgustÃn Tixihi, Magdalena Peñasco and San Antonio Sinicahua (sujetos that claimed to belong to the cabecera of Tlaxiaco). He showed a memoria de linderos of his cacicazgoâs lands and he specified that the lands that belonged to San AgustÃn were being possessed by the natives with his consent because he had ceded to them after his recognition as their cacique. He requested the Juzgado Privativo to obtain a new separate deed for the authorities of San AgustÃn, offering to serve His Majesty with 40 pesos.95
In January 1707, his request was admitted, and testimony was taken from four witnesses, authorities of San AgustÃn and nearby pueblos. They all agreed that Don Pablo enjoyed the cacicazgo of San AgustÃn, Sinicahua and Magdalena Peñasco by a merced granted in past times, and the natives recognised this. Therefore, he ceded part of the lands to San AgustÃnâs common, those contained in the memoria de linderos presented, without negatively affecting the neighbouring settlements.
The request was successful, and on 30 June 1707, the writ was issued admitting the composición and granting the deeds to San AgustÃn, following laws XIV to XIX of TÃtulo XII, Libro IV, of the Recopilación de Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias.96 In addition, in 1727, before the alcalde mayor of the province of Teposcolula, the authorities of San AgustÃn requested that, in order to defend their territory against possible future introductions from neighbours, they should be given testimony so that neither the cacique nor his descendants could later dispossess them of the lands that were recognised as theirs by composición.97 Although this request does not explicitly state this, it is probable that the 600 varas that would constitute the tierras por razón de pueblo were officially recognised using this composición.
We believe that this last-mentioned request could have been motivated by the Royal Decree of 10Â March 1717, which inaugurated a period of great activity in composiciones in the Mixteca, as Edgar Mendoza observes.98
Magdalena Peñasco and San Antonio Sinicahua likely followed a mechanism similar to that of their neighbour San AgustÃn to settle their lands. However, the complexity of the process in a territory where the overlapping of jurisdictions was evident, coupled with certain fraudulent practices by the authorities, delayed the resolutions for decades. Mendoza observed that the juez y subdelegado de ventas y composición de tierras y aguas in the province of Teposcolula and Yanhuitlán, Mathias Morato, irregularly gave possession of lands to private individuals and was discovered by the natives. Then, he hurriedly fled the jurisdiction in 1749, taking with him the documents (grants and land titles) of several pueblos.99 To solve the problem, in 1764, Don Diego Antonio Neira, the new alcalde mayor of Teposcolula, was commissioned as subdelegado de tierras y aguas.100
In 1767, under this new impulse, Magdalena Peñasco, San Antonio Sinicahua and, again, San AgustÃn requested the composición of their lands because they were also included within the boundaries of those granted in 1707 to the cacique Don Pablo. On this occasion, Don Nicolás de Castro y Morales, grandson of Don Pablo, intervened with the pueblos. The cacicazgo had fallen to him four years earlier after the heirless death of his brother Don AgustÃn. For that reason, he moved his residence from Puebla to Magdalena Peñasco. His argument for requesting the composición was that ten boundaries noted in the 1707 title had been maliciously erased and amended during the long time that the document had been âusurped and lostâ. Thus, the lands of Magdalena Peñasco and San Antonio Sinicahua, which had not been so previously, could be legitimised. Then, they presented the three pueblosâ memoria de linderosâall in Ãudzahui languageâand witnesses from neighbouring places were summoned to corroborate the information. All recognised Don Nicolás as a cacique in legitimate possession and, as there was no contradiction except in three boundaries on the limits with another pueblo, the records were accepted as valid. Then, it was requested that a dispatch be sent to the juez privativo to grant the deed.101
In the history told here, we find a contradiction for which we have yet to find an explanation. In the 1707 process, the three pueblos were said to be sujetos to Tlaxiaco, but, as indicated before, we know that they belonged to San Mateo Peñasco from the moment it became a cabecera in 1687, agglutinating the settlements that most probably were politically linked to it since pre-Hispanic times. This issue could go unnoticed, but not if we link it to something else that calls our attention and forces us to look at the physical extension of the territory referred to in the memorias de linderos and the particular social actors of the 18th century.
As previously stated, the lineage was fundamental in articulating the Mixtec social-political system. However, we find absolutely no genealogical antecedents beyond Don Pablo, who appears for the first time in the historical records in 1707. This fact allows us to formulate the following hypothesis: we can consider him a cacique advenedizo (upstart) who entered the scene to satisfy the needs of a symbiotic relationship between his family and the three pueblos who sought to legitimise their lands and thus propitiate the separation of their cabecera, which they would achieve some years after the composición.102 The fact that in the composición proceedings the cacique assumed that they were sujetos to Tlaxiaco and not to San Mateo Peñasco, may be a sign of disaffection towards the latter.
In the petition and granting of titles for San AgustÃn Tlacotepec in 1707, it was made explicit that the pueblos could enjoy the lands where they had settled quietly and peacefully since time immemorial due to the grace of the cacique in exchange for recognising him as their lord.103 This confronts us with the nature of the relationship between the repúblicas and the cacicazgos in the 18th century and with their possible conception as a new type of corporation, which assumed dominion over lands that were factually inseparable from the corporation itself.104
This also forces us to question the late-colonial seigniorial ties. We can see that, by the 18th century, there were many caciques and cacicas who claimed to be from pueblos that did not seem to recognise such power in previous centuries.105 This situation contradicts some of the ideas expressed by Rodolfo Pastor and Marcelo Carmagnani about the loss of the moral bond that united the caciques with the pueblos, partly due to leasing cacicazgo lands for individual benefit. According to this point of view, the consequence would be the disregard of the caciques by the commoners and the irreparable fracture between the lord and the community.106 However, what kind of privileges did the three generations of ânewâ caciques Castro and Morales in our case study enjoy and what was their real relationship with access to land? Was there a territorial jurisdiction for them (the territory considered personal patrimony linked to their quality of lordship), or did they only fulfil government or administrative functions?107 Or was their presence merely an artifice deployed by the pueblos?
We need to analyse in detail the intervention of the ânewâ caciques if we want to make generalisations about their possible role in 18th-century Mixtec society, as well as the relation between composiciones and cacicazgos from cases like the one reported here.108
6 Conclusions
The historical processes presented in these pages clearly show us how, in the Mixtec section analysed, the señorial relations between the yya (noble rulers, later recognised as caciques) and the tay yucu (commoners) and the tay situndayu (terrazgueros) mediated access to land and natural resources during the entire new-Hispanic period. They also did so to recognise each otherâs rights under the Hispanic normative system. However, we find these veiled relationships in the space of the ancient señorÃo of Tlaxiaco from the 16th century, when the figure of the cacique disappeared nominally from the scene and the dominion over the land fell to the república de indios.
Very often, the processes of (re)territorialisation during the early modern period in Mesoamerica have been explained as both the transformation of the conception of territory based on the personal association of lords with their vassals and as an idea based on a properly territorial association, attributed to the tradition of the centralised European state.109 According to these conceptions, the former would pose a territory that is challenging to grasp, with imprecise limits. At the same time, the latter would impose a static and well-defined territorial panorama employing laws, edicts and regulations. However, if we can admit that the so-called Leyes de Indias rested on the broad normative universe of the ius commune, which was structured based on local and personal jurisdictions, often on a micro-scale,110 we should not be surprised that the deployment of Mixtec territoriality attached to señorial relations found ways to thrive, even well into the 18th century. This obliges us to qualify the vision that taxatively contrasts indigenous territoriality with a European one imposed through coercive legal mechanisms.
Given this particular panorama, I propose, still hypothetically, that access to natural resources in differentiated environments not only modulated the spaces claimed for themselves by both cacicazgos and repúblicas de indiosâin many cases, coinciding spacesâbut could also be related to how they sought to legitimise the lands under the Hispanic normative system. Future research will allow us to compare events in different Mixtec environments to test this idea.
The definition proposed here is indebted to the perspective on territory developed by Latin American critical geography. For Rogério Haesbaertâwithout being an a priori, a category of analysis or a prior mental conceptionâthe definition of territory is related to the political and jurisdictional control of space and, therefore, every territory always has a spatial-material basis for its constitution, that is, the land itself and the natural resources housed therein. This definition necessarily integrates the societies that inhabit it and the mechanisms they implement to exercise appropriations, delimitations and modifications on the natural environment. Haesbaert, âDel mito de la desterritorialización a la multiterritorialidadâ.
Ouweneel and Hoekstra, Las tierras de los pueblos de indios.
GarcÃa MartÃnez, âLa naturaleza corporativa de los pueblos de indiosâ.
Menegus and Aguirre, El cacicazgo en Nueva España y Filipinas.
Menegus, âBalance historiográficoâ; La Mixteca Baja; âLa territorialidad de los cacicazgos y los conflictos con terrazgueros y los pueblos vecinos en el siglo XVIIIâ; âCacicazgos y repúblicas de indios en el siglo XVIâ.
MartÃnez, Tepeaca en el siglo XVI; Cruz Pazos, âDel arrendamiento al despojo de tierrasâ; Chance, âFrom Lord to Landownerâ.
Mendoza GarcÃa, âLa descomposición de un cacicazgoâ.
Hermann, âÃuu Yava, Tamazolaâ.
Reyes, Arte en lengua mixteca, IâII.
In parallel to the geographical aspect, linguists have perceived that the dialectal grouping of the Ãudzahui language, which belongs to the Otomanguean family, also follows a distribution pattern similar to the geographical one. This circumstance tells us about greater contact intensity between groups within these spaces. See Josserand, Mixtec dialect history.
In another work, I have extensively reflected on the relevance of conceiving the Mixteca as a socio-historical space. MartÃn Gabaldón, âLa Mixteca o las mixtecasâ.
Other common cultural indicators to consider are religious, calendar and pictographic writing.
To learn more about this broad historical process in Hispanic America, starting in the 16th century, see Bastias Saavedra (Chapter 1) in this volume.
Alvarado, Vocabulario en lengua mixteca, fols. 15v, 63v, 105v, 139v, 174v, 195r, 202v.
It is still being determined whether the differences between the terms are purely lexical or whether they have conceptual implications. The same is true in the Nahua environment with the sub-entities of altepetl called calpolli, tlaxilacalli and chinamitl. Terraciano, Los mixtecos de la Oaxaca colonial, 165â168.
Toniñe can be translated in a broad sense as âgovernmentâ, and Kevin Terraciano makes it analogous with the Nahua tlatocáyotl. Terraciano, Los mixtecos de la Oaxaca colonial, 162, 248â275.
Spores, Ãuu Ãudzahui la Mixteca de Oaxaca, 87, 99, 106. Rodolfo Pastor especially emphasised the relevance of kinship and lineage in forming what he conceptualised as kindred, for both the supreme ruler and the principals and the commoners. He considered the sets of families as the fundamental reference units in the politico-social system. Pastor, Campesinos y reformas, 28â36.
We conceive of the terrazgo as the rent received by the caciques from the peasants who worked part of their lands for them. Menegus, âCacicazgos y repúblicas de indios en el siglo XVIâ.
Chance, âFrom Lord to Landownerâ 445â466.
Spores, âMarital Alliance in the Political Integration of Mixtec Kingdomsâ, 297â311. In this sense, it is a possible parallel to the analyses carried out by John Murra in the Andean environment since the 1950s concerning the vertical control of ecological floors. However, the fundamental distinction between the Andean space and Mesoamerica is that the Inca did not demand tribute from his vassals, but labour force. At the same time, the tlatoani requested personal services, labour and tribute in kind. Exhaustive research on the functioning of many Mixtec lordships is still needed to articulate a solid theory and empirically understand their possible function in the Mixteca.
We owe the spatial notion of entreveramiento de tierras to Pedro Carrasco. The imposition on the lordships to deliver certain products as tribute may have interfered with their spatial configuration since it encouraged them to occupy specific lands where they could be obtained. Carrasco, Estructura polÃtico-territorial del imperio tenochca. For the Mixteca, see Monaghan, âIrrigation and Ecological Complementarity in Mixtec Cacicazgosâ.
Taylor, Terratenientes y campesinos en la Oaxaca colonial, 59; Assadourian, âAgriculture and Land Tenureâ; Menegus, La Mixteca Baja, 56, 96â97. An interesting discussion of these notions is given in Carrera Quezada, Sementeras de papel, 26â33. In the 19th century, dominio pleno o absoluto was defined as âel poder que uno tiene en alguna cosa para enajenarla sin dependencia de otro, percibir todos sus frutos, y escluir de su uso a los demásâ, and the dominio útil âel derecho de percibir todos los frutos de una cosa bajo alguna prestación o tributo que se paga al que conserva en ella el dominio directo, tal es el dominio que tiene el vasallo o enfiteuta en la heredad que ha tomado a feudo o enfiteusisâ. Escriche, Diccionario razonado de legislación jurisprudencia, 568. See also Peset and Menegus, âRey propietario y o rey soberanoâ.
Menegus, La Mixteca Baja, 50, 56; Menegus, âCacicazgos y repúblicas de indios en el siglo XVI,â 205â220.
Margarita Menegus has provided relevant data on the cacicazgo of Huajuapan and others in the Mixteca Baja that illustrate this idea, and John Chance shows how the change from lord in charge of local government to landowner, more detached from the affairs of the community, could operate as early as the 18th century. Menegus, La Mixteca Baja; Chance, âFrom Lord to Landownerâ.
Spores, Ãuu Ãudzahui la Mixteca de Oaxaca, 82.
The haciendas volantes consisted of pastures rented to both the caciques and the Indian republics by the Spanish owners of herds and flocks on their annual transhumant journey to the coast. Romero Frizzi, EconomÃa y vida de los españoles en la Mixteca Alta: 1519â1720.
Comisariado de bienes comunales, âDiligencias para la congregación de Tlaxiacoâ, 1599. This document was found in the municipal presidency of the Heroica Ciudad de Tlaxiaco three decades ago by Ronald Spores and John Monaghan and is currently in the custody of the Comisariado de Bienes Comunales.
Kowalewski, Origins of the Ãuu.
Burgoa, Geográfica descripción, 305â306. â[â¦] TenÃa más de cien leguas de travesÃa el reino de tanta variedad de temples, que saliendo de la región de la nieve, se baja a la del fuego donde son las sabandijas tan ponzoñosas, como innumerables chinches voladoras, mosquitos mordaces, gusanos, arañas, vÃboras, y tigres ferocÃsimos, sin otros animales nocivos a cada paso, los riscos son intratables, las sierras altÃsimas, opacas, y sombrÃas, por las arboledas de robles, pinos y cedros frondosos, que las cubren, los rÃos más caudalosos, crÃan muy regaladas truchas, y otros pescados donceles, por ser las aguas muy delgadas, y frÃas, que se precipitan de montes [â¦]. Danse en los montes duraznos, brevas, peras, y manzanas, de linda sazón, y en las tierras bajas, cidras, naranjas, limas, toronjas, limones, piñas, plátanos mameyes, y otras frutas de mucho vicio, y en raras vegas se siembra algún trigoâ.
AGN, Indios, vol. 29, exp. 297. As was common in New Spain, the rest of the political separations occurred progressively throughout the 18th century. The functioning of this complex lordship and its integration mechanisms are the subject of another detailed piece of research. MartÃn Gabaldón, âJurisdicción prehispánica y colonial de Tlaxiacoâ.
Bernardo GarcÃa MartÃnez understands jurisdiction as a general principle that âse liga con la esencia del principio de asociación que fundamenta toda colectividad organizada polÃticamente [â¦]. Quienes la encabezan o representan detentan, en nombre propio o de la colectividad, el derecho a disponer en cierta medida de las personas o los recursos de los dependientes, o de sus servicios y productos, lo cual es el fundamento de conscripciones, levas, tributos, impuestos y otras demandasâ. GarcÃa MartÃnez, âJurisdicción y propiedadâ, 48.
For some models of segmentary or oligarchic states in Mesoamerica, see Daneels and Gutiérrez Mendoza, El poder compartido.
The Codex Bodley is a pre-Hispanic pictographic document kept in the Bodleian Library of the University of Oxford, whose reverse side narrates the history of the rulers of the Lugar Bulto de Xipe (not yet located with certainty) and, with it, the evolution of the dynasties of Ndisi Nuu-Tlaxiaco. Pohl, âAncient Books: Mixtec Group Codices. Codex Bodley.â
AGI, Audiencia de México 538, N. 7, fols. 2râ10r. Library of Congress, Kraus MS 140, fols. 411râ411v. Newberry Library, Ayer MS 1121, fol. 195v.
Marta MartÃn Gabaldón, âJurisdicción prehispánica y colonial de Tlaxiacoâ.
Spores, Ãuu Ãudzahui la Mixteca de Oaxaca, 309â311. Unfortunately, after the transfer and unification of files in the current Archivo Histórico Judicial de Oaxaca collection, it has not been possible to locate the file that Spores consulted. However, one of the witnesses who came to testify in 1717 in an extensive lawsuit over certain lands of the cacicazgo said that he had heard his grandparents say that Doña MarÃa left the cacicazgo to the community of the cabecera of Tlaxiaco. AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, leg. 22, exp. 12, fols. 26râ26v. Pastor indicated that, in at least two cases, caciques without direct descendants left their property to their communities, although he does not sufficiently clarify this assertion. Pastor, Campesinos y reformas, 79.
AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, leg. 22, exp. 12.
Documents from the Comisariado de Bienes Comunales of San Juan Copala published by GarcÃa Alcaraz, Tinujei. Los triquis de Copala, 217â220. AHMHCT, sección Jefatura polÃtica, subsección Gobierno, serie Tierras, subserie LÃmites, caja 214, exp. 1.
For a parallel case, see Juradoâs study on Charcas (Chapter 6) in this volume.
AGN, Tierras, vol. 44, exp. 1. AHJ, Teposcolula Criminal, leg. 1, exps. 13 y 44.
AGN, Tierras, vol. 44, exp. 1.
AHJ, Teposcolula Criminal, leg. 2, exp. 48.
AGN, Tierras, vol. 2948, exp. 28.
AHJ, Teposcolula Criminal, leg. 9, exp. 15.
MartÃn Gabaldón, âNew crops, new landscapes and new socio-political relationshipsâ.
In the colonial records, estancia and sujeto have the same politic-territorial subordination meaning to the cabecera.
AHJ, Teposcolula Criminal, leg. 6, exp. 35, fols. 1râ5r. This lawsuit was the germ of another series of legal confrontations over land between Yolotepec, San Felipe Tindaco and Tlaxiaco in the last third of the 16th century. AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, leg. 2, exps. 1 y 13.
For example, in 1554 in Huejotzingo, the Franciscans urged the lords to distribute part of their patrimonial lands among their terrazgueros through the payment of an emphyteutic census. The lords mentioned that ânos den alguna cosa de renta por las tierras que les diéremosâ. Luis Reyes mentioned in Menegus, La Mixteca Baja, 49.
Jansen and Pérez Jiménez, Historia, literatura e ideologÃa de Ãuu Dzahui, 69â70. In contrast, Ronald Spores attributes to the yuhuitayu defined and restricted spaces in the demographic-social and geographic aspects, maintaining that they would be constituted by one or two valleys bordering mountains or high hills. Spores, Ãuu Ãudzahui la Mixteca de Oaxaca, 103.
Terraciano, Los mixtecos de la Oaxaca colonial, 220, 226.
GarcÃa MartÃnez, Los pueblos de la sierra, 97â105.
âReal cédula a la Audiencia de la Nueva España ordenando sean hechos pueblos de indios, con autoridades municipales elegidas entre el vecindario. Valladolid, October 9, 1549â, in Solano, Cedulario de tierras, 171.
All the valuations preserved for New Spain, related either to the salaries of republic officials or those of the natural lords or caciques, begin in the 1570s, not before. This reflects the fact that from 1550 onwards, Viceroy Velasco made a special effort to optimise the general economic system of New Spain through the implementation of extensive tax reform, which implied more significant observance in the appraisals of the towns. Between 1550 and 1556 numerous tax laws were passed. In addition, a general visitation was authorised, carried out by the visitador Jerónimo de Valderrama between 1563 and 1566, who came with the stern mandate of Philip II to increase Indian taxes. Menegus, âCacicazgos y repúblicas de indios en el siglo XVIâ, 211.
AGN, Indios, vol. 1, exp. 157, fol. 58r.
This situation also occurred in the Yucatán Peninsula. The Maya lords (batabes), recognised as caciques, continued to rule in the towns after the repúblicas de indios were formed, continuing with the dynamics of personal bonds. Quezada, Maya Lords and Lordships. In the Mixteca, in addition to the power exercised and managed from within the cabildo, the caciques, principals and influential nobles consolidated their power outside the formal system, interceding in the decision-making of the provincial authorities, the encomenderos and the clergy through kind of âparapoliticalâ activities. See Spores, Ãuu Ãudzahui la Mixteca de Oaxaca, 233.
Since caciques or cacicas were often from several cabeceras, it was stipulated that he could only serve as governor in the cabecera where he lived. Spores, The Mixtecs in ancient and colonial times, 167.
Spores, Ãuu Ãudzahui la Mixteca de Oaxaca, 214â215, 220.
The access of macehuales (commoners) to the positions of the cabildo.
Pastor, Campesinos y reformas, 90.
This document is in the Archivo Histórico Judicial, Teposcolula Civil section. Unfortunately, the classification of the documents mentioned by some authors has already been modified, and it is sometimes difficult to trace them today. Terraciano, Los mixtecos de la Oaxaca colonial, 282.
Terraciano, âThe Colonial Mixtec Communityâ, 31, alludes to this and other mechanisms used to guarantee the noble character of the governorâs position.
AGN, Mercedes, vol. 13, exp. 19, fol. 14r; AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, leg. 5, exp. 18; leg. 6, exp. 53.
Contrast this with what is referred to by Spores, âMixteca Cacicasâ; Menegus, âBalance historiográficoâ, 221; and RodrÃguez Cano, âApuntes sobre la herencia de los cacicazgos en la Mixteca Bajaâ.
AGN, Tierras, vol. 59, exp. 2; Terraciano, âThe Colonial Mixtec Communityâ, 31; Los mixtecos de la Oaxaca colonial, 283. Note that the father of Doña MarÃa, the cacique Don Felipe, had no problem with occupying the governorship in Tlaxiaco in 1567. AHJ, Teposcolula Criminal, Leg. 1, exp. 13.
Spores, âMixteca Cacicas,â 192â193; Ãuu Ãudzahui la Mixteca de Oaxaca, 309â311. See footnote 36.
Spores, Ãuu Ãudzahui la Mixteca de Oaxaca, 310.
AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, leg. 22, exp. 12; GarcÃa Alcaraz, Tinujei. Los triquis de Copala, 217â220.
Comisariado de Bienes Comunales, âDiligencias para la congregación de Tlaxiacoâ, 1599.
Baltasar de Chávez was governor in 1581, AGN, Tierras, vol. 400, exp. 1, fol. 55r, mentioned in Romero Frizzi, EconomÃa y vida de los españoles en la Mixteca Alta, 98. Juan de Chávez was governor in 1636 and 1642, AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, leg. 10, exp. 42, AGN, Indiferente virreinal, caja 5172, exp. 45. And Pedro MartÃn de Chávez y Guzmán held the position in 1716 and 1719, AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, leg. 21, exps. 16.069 y 16.158.
Suma de visitas de pueblos, 387. In the middle of the 16th century, the cabecera-sujeto complex into which the old señorÃo of Tlaxiaco was adapted still had a complex structure, with pueblos sujetos that, in turn, agglutinated other dependent settlements around them. By the end of the century, this complexity seemed diluted, and all the smaller pueblos were considered sujetos to Tlaxiaco.
AGN, Tierras, vol. 3030, exp. 8, fols. 231râ234r.
AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, leg. 05, exp. 18.
AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, leg. 22, exp. 10; AGEO, AlcaldÃas Mayores, leg. 54, exp. 5.
AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, Leg. 22, exp. 10.
AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, leg. 30, exp. 29.18. The type of contract of obligation to which the formula responds has been consolidated in the Hispanic sphere since the 13th century and has been widely developed from the 15th century in notarial records. GarcÃa Gil, âLos contratos de obligación en Castillaâ, 294.
AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, leg. 30, exp. 29.18, fol. 40v.
Yannakakis, Since Time Immemorial, 139â170. In this part of the book, Yannakakis analyses in detail the agreements mentioned here, and others, in light of law and native custom.
Francisco Solano, Cedulario de tierras, 43â44, 269â277.
Carrera Quezada, Sementeras de papel, 139.
Solano, Cedulario de tierras, 51â59.
On the Juzgado Privativo de Tierras y Aguas, see Carrera Quezada, âLa fundación del Juzgado Privativoâ and âLa Superintendencia del Beneficio y Composición de Tierrasâ.
Mendoza GarcÃa, âLas composiciones de tierras en la Mixteca la formación del territorio comunal de cabeceras y sujetosâ; Menegus, âDel usufructo, de la posesión y de la propiedadâ.
Mendoza GarcÃa, âLas composiciones de tierras en la Mixteca,â 267; Menegus, âDel usufructo, de la posesión y de la propiedad,â 196; Menegus, âLas composiciones de tierras en el centro de la Nueva España y en Oaxacaâ, 369â370. The 600 varas arise from the 500 mentioned in the ordenanza of the Marqués de Falces of 1567, plus another 100. There is a great deal of historiographical confusion about the nature of this concession, which would lead to the formation of the tierras por razón de pueblo, later known as fundo legal. Some researchers contributing to the subject are Bernardo GarcÃa MartÃnez, Stephanie Wood and Felipe Castro. A synthesis of their positions and a dialogue on the problem can be read in Escobar Ohmstede and MartÃn Gabaldón, âUna relectura sobre cómo se observa a lo(s) común(es) en Méxicoâ.
Carrera Quezada, Sergio, âLas composiciones de tierras en la Mixteca y la formación del territorio comunal de cabeceras y sujetosâ, 30â31.
Menegus, âDel usufructo, de la posesión y de la propiedadâ.
Bastias Saavedra, âThe normativity of possessionâ.
Bastias Saavedra, âThe normativity of possessionâ, 229.
Menegus, âDel usufructo, de la posesión y de la propiedadâ, 206â207.
I thank Manuel Bastias Saavedra for this idea.
Menegus, âDel usufructo, de la posesión y de la propiedadâ, 202; Menegus, âLas composiciones de tierras en el centro de la Nueva España y en Oaxacaâ, 371.
AGN, Indios, vol. 29, exp. 297.
I analyse this case in greater depth in MartÃn Gabaldón, âConfiguraciones territoriales âmóvilesââ¯â.
Solano, Cedulario de tierras, 377â380.
The second superintendent in charge of the compositions, Francisco Camargo Paz, had delegated, in turn, the attorney Baltasar de Tovar, civil prosecutor of the Real Audiencia, for the application of the cédula de composiciones. AGN, Tierras, vol. 3690, exp. 6, fols. 6vâ9r.
âTÃtulos del pueblo de San AgustÃn Tixihii de la comprensión del partido de Tlajiaco,â Donación, March 1927. AGN, Tierras, vol. 3690, exp. 6.
I would like to emphasise, in particular, that Ley XIX of Libro IV, TÃtulo XII, described that âQue no sea admitido a composición el que no hubiere poseÃdo las tierras diez años, y los indios sean preferidosâ. Recopilación de Leyes, tomo segundo, 103vâ104v.
AGN, Tierras, vol. 3690, exp. 6, fols. 19vâ22v.
Mendoza GarcÃa, âApropiación territorial y conflictosâ. Don Félix Chacón, alcalde mayor of Teposcolula, reported in 1717 that only seven pueblos had requested composición and that 231 were yet to do so in the jurisdictions of Yanhuitlán, Nochixtlán, Tilantongo and Teposcolula. AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, leg. 22, exp. 18.
Mendoza GarcÃa, âApropiación territorial y conflictosâ. AGEO, AlcaldÃas mayores, leg. 54, exp. 12.
Mendoza GarcÃa, âApropiación territorial y conflictosâ. AGEO, AlcaldÃas mayores, leg. 55, exp. 20.
AGEO, AlcaldÃas mayores, leg. 56, exp. 12.
AGN, Indios, vol. 63, exp. 17. Many types and functions of upstart caciques have been identified throughout colonial America. In other areas, such as in central Mexico, from the 18th century onwards, some lords did not receive legitimate recognition through the Crown but, because they had occupied cabildo positions and accumulated social and economic privileges, instilled fear and were considered caciques in their towns and set themselves up as interlocutors with the Spaniards. See López Mora, âLa aristocracia del puebloâ.
AGN, Tierras, vol. 3690, exp. 6, fol. 11v. A similar situation can be seen in the argument made in 1802 by a cacica of Tlalixtac in the Central Valleys, who argued that her great-grandfather had allowed by his grace some families to settle in the early 18th century in what would later become the pueblo of Tomaltepec, in exchange for his recognition as a lord. AGN, Tierras, vol. 1335, exp. 1.
Buono, in this book, argues about the link between the corporation and its assets.
I have been able to corroborate this situation, for example, from the information gathered by Israel Garrido Esquivel, Head of the Department of the Archivo General del Consejo de la Judicatura del Poder Judicial de Oaxaca, about the names of caciques and their respective pueblos that appear in the documentation of the old Juzgado de Teposcolula from the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. I thank him for his generosity in sharing these findings with me.
Pastor, Campesinos y reformas, 166â175; Carmagnani, El regreso de los dioses.
This question was already raised by Margarita Menegus when she took a close look at the relationship between caciques and their terrazgueros in Huajuapan and Tepexi, albeit concerning âtraditionalâ cacicazgos. Menegus, âLa territorialidad de los cacicazgosâ, 83.
My case study is substantially different from what Edgar Mendoza has analysed for Chalcatongo, where composiciones determined the fragmentation of the cacicazgo. Likewise, it also shows a situation different from that analysed by Misael Chavoya in the Nochixtlán Valley, where composiciones catalysed the existing conflict between two pueblos sujetos. Mendoza, âLa descomposición de un cacicazgoâ; Chavoya, Pueblos de indios, composiciones de tierras y conflictos por el territorio.
Ouweneel and Hoekstra, Las tierras de los pueblos de indios.
Bastias Saavedra, âThe normativity of possessionâ.
Bibliography
Manuscripts
Archivo General de Indias, Sevilla (AGI), Audiencia de México 538, N. 7.
Archivo General del Estado de Oaxaca, Oaxaca de Juárez (AGEO), AlcaldÃas Mayores, leg. 54, exp. 5.
AGEO, AlcaldÃas mayores, leg. 54, exp. 12.
AGEO, AlcaldÃas mayores, leg. 55, exp. 20.
AGEO, AlcaldÃas mayores, leg. 56, exp. 12.
Archivo General de la Nación, Mexico (AGN), Indiferente virreinal, caja 5172, exp. 45.
AGN, Indios, vol. 1, exp. 157.
AGN, Indios, vol. 29, exp. 297.
AGN, Indios, vol. 63, exp. 17.
AGN, Mercedes, vol. 13, exp. 19.
AGN, Tierras, vol. 59, exp. 2.
AGN, Tierras, vol. 44, exp. 1.
AGN, Tierras, vol. 59, exp. 2.
AGN, Tierras, vol. 400, exp. 1.
AGN, Tierras, vol. 1335, exp. 1.
AGN, Tierras, vol. 2948, exp. 28.
AGN, Tierras, vol. 3030, exp. 8.
AGN, Tierras, vol. 3690, exp. 6.
Archivo Histórico Judicial, Oaxaca de Juárez (AHJ), Teposcolula Civil, leg. 2, exp. 1.
AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, leg. 2, exp. 13.
AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, leg. 5, exp. 18.
AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, leg. 6, exp. 53.
AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, leg. 10, exp. 42.
AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, leg. 21, exp. 16.069.
AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, leg. 21, exp. 16.158.
AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, Leg. 22, exp. 10.
AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, leg. 22, exp. 12.
AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, leg. 22, exp. 18.
AHJ, Teposcolula Civil, leg. 30, exp. 29.18.
AHJ, Teposcolula Criminal, leg. 1, exp. 13.
AHJ, Teposcolula Criminal, leg. 1, exp. 44.
AHJ, Teposcolula Criminal, leg. 2, exp. 48.
AHJ, Teposcolula Criminal, leg. 6, exp. 35.
AHJ, Teposcolula Criminal, Leg. 9, exp. 15.
Archivo Histórico Municipal de la Heroica Ciudad de Tlaxiaco (AHMHCT), Jefatura polÃtica section, Gobierno subsection, Tierras series, LÃmites subseries, caja 214, exp. 1.
Comisariado de Bienes Comunales, Heroica Ciudad de Tlaxiaco, âDiligencias para la congregación de Tlaxiaco, 1599â.
Library of Congress, Kraus MS 140.
Newberry Library, Ayer MS 1121.
Printed Sources
Alvarado, Fray Francisco de, Vocabulario en lengua mixteca por fray Francisco de Alvarado, facsimile ed. Jiménez Moreno, Wigberto, México 1962.
Burgoa, Fray Francisco de, Geográfica Descripción de la Parte Septentrional, del Polo Ãrtico de la América, y Nueva Iglesia de las Indias occidentales, y sitio astronómico de esta Provincia de Predicadores de Antequera, Valle de Oaxaca, t. 1, México 1989.
Recopilación de Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias, facsimile edition of 1680, preliminary study by Manzano Manzano, Juan, 4 vols, Madrid 1973.
Reyes, Fray Antonio de los, Arte en lengua mixteca compuesta por el Padre Fray Antonio de los Reyes de la orden de Predicadores, Vicario de Tepuzculula, ed. Charencey, Count H. of, Alençon 1890.
Suma de visitas de pueblos de la Nueva España, 1548â1550, ed. GarcÃa Castro, René, Toluca 2013.
Literature
Assadourian, Carlos Sempat, âAgriculture and Land Tenureâ, in Victor Bulmer-Thomas et al. (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of Latin America, Vol. I, The Colonial Era and the Short Nineteenth Century, New York 2006, 275â314.
Bastias Saavedra, Manuel, âThe normativity of possession. Rethinking land relations in early-modern Spanish America, ca. 1500â1800,â in Colonial Latin American Review 29:2 (2020), 223â238.
Carmagnani, Marcelo, El regreso de los dioses. El proceso de reconstitución de la identidad étnica en Oaxaca, siglos XVII y XVIII, Mexico 1988.
Carrasco, Pedro, Estructura polÃtico-territorial del Imperio Tenochca. La Triple Alianza de Tenochtitlan, Tetzcoco y Tlacopan, México, 1996.
Carrera Quezada, Sergio Eduardo, âLas composiciones de tierras en los pueblos de indios en dos jurisdicciones coloniales de la Huasteca, 1692â1720â, in Estudios de Historia Novohispana 52 (2015), 29â50.
Carrera Quezada, Sergio Eduardo, Sementeras de papel. La regularización de la propiedad rural en la Huasteca serrana, 1550â1720, Mexico 2018.
Carrera Quezada, Sergio Eduardo, âLa fundación del Juzgado Privativo de Tierras y Aguas de la Real Audiencia de México, 1692â1735â, in Revista de Indias 79:276 (2019), 369â398.
Carrera Quezada, Sergio Eduardo, âLa Superintendencia del Beneficio y Composición de Tierras, 1692â1754â, in Carrera Quezada, Sergio E. and Juan Manuel Pérez Zevallos (coords.), En todos los rincones imperiales. Apropiaciones de tierras baldÃas y composiciones de propiedades agrarias en América y Filipinas (siglos XVIâXIX), México 2022, 219â248.
Chance, John, âFrom Lord to Landowner: The Predicament of the Late Colonial Mixtec Cacique,â in Ethnohistory 57:3 (2010), 445â466.
Chavoya, Misael, Pueblos de indios, composiciones de tierras y conflictos por el territorio en la Mixteca Alta, Oaxaca, siglos XVII y XVIII (El caso de San Juan Bautista Suchitepeque contra Santiago Amatlán) (Masters Thesis), México 2018.
Cruz Pazos, Patricia, âDel arrendamiento al despojo de tierras: Los caciques Cruz y la hacienda de San Jerónimo (Tepexi de la Seda, Puebla-México, 1728â1805)â, in Memoria Americana 15 (2007), 41â69.
Daneels, Annick and Gerardo Gutiérrez Mendoza, El poder compartido. Essays on the archaeology of segmentary and oligarchic political organizations, Mexico 2012.
Escobar Ohmstede, Antonio and Marta MartÃn Gabaldón, âUna relectura sobre cómo se observa a lo(s) común(es) en México. ¿Cambios en la transición del siglo XIX al siglo XX? o ¿una larga continuidad?â, in Documentos de Trabajo del Instituto Universitario de Investigación en Estudios Latinoamericanos 136 (2020), 4â63.
Escriche, JoaquÃn, Diccionario razonado de legislación y jurisprudencia, Paris 1851.
GarcÃa Alcaraz, AgustÃn, Tinujei. Los triquis de Copala, Mexico 1997.
GarcÃa Gil, Elizabeth, âLos contratos de obligación en Castilla a fines del Antiguo Régimen. Análisis diplomático de los registros notariales de Vélez- Málaga (1775â1806)â, in Tiempos Modernos 44 (2022), 282â300.
GarcÃa MartÃnez, Bernardo, Los pueblos de la sierra. El poder y el espacio entre los indios del norte de Puebla hasta 1700, Mexico 1987.
GarcÃa MartÃnez, Bernardo, âJurisdicción y propiedad: una distinción fundamental en la historia de los pueblos de indios del México colonialâ, in European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 53 (1992), 47â60.
GarcÃa MartÃnez, Bernardo, âLa naturaleza corporativa de los pueblos de indiosâ, in Memorias de la Real Academia Mexicana de la Historia correspondiente a la Real de Madrid XLII (1999), 213â236.
Haesbaert, Rogério, âFrom the myth of deterritorialization to multiterritoriality,â in Culture and Social Representations 8:15 (2013), 9â42.
Hermann Lejarazu, Manuel, âÃuu Yava, Tamazola. Historia y territorio en la Mixteca Altaâ, in Hermann Lejarazu, Manuel (coord.), SeñorÃos mixtecos. Su dimensión histórica, geográfica y territorial, México 2021, 17â76.
Jansen, Maarten and Gabina Aurora Pérez Jiménez, Historia, literatura e ideologÃa de Ãuu Dzahui: el Códice Añute y su contexto histórico-cultural, Oaxaca de Juárez 2007.
Josserand, Judy, Mixtec dialect history (Proto-Mixtec and modern Mixtec text), Tulane 1983.
Kowalewski, Stephen et al., Origins of the Ãuu. Archaeology in the Mixteca Alta, Mexico, Boulder 2009.
López Mora, Rebeca, âLa aristocracia del pueblo: caciques advenedizos de Tlalnepantla, México, siglo XVIIIâ, in Nuevo Mundo Mundos Nuevos [online], Débats, (January 2011), https://journals.openedition.org/nuevomundo/60656
MartÃn Gabaldón, Marta, âNew crops, new landscapes and new socio-political relationships in the Cañada de Yosotiche (Mixteca region, Oaxaca, Mexico), 16thâ18th centuriesâ, in Historia Agraria, revista de agricultura e historia rural 75 (2018), 33â68.
MartÃn Gabaldón, Marta, âJurisdicción prehispánica y colonial de Tlaxiaco, ¿un territorio integrado? Consideraciones a partir de un estudio transdisciplinarâ, in Hermann Lejarazu, Manuel A. (coord.), SeñorÃos mixtecos. Su dimensión histórica, geográfica y territorial, Zinacantepec 2021, 77â110.
MartÃn Gabaldón, Marta, âConfiguraciones territoriales âmóvilesâ en la Mixteca Alta (Oaxaca)â, in Prohistoria. Historia, polÃticas de la historia XXVI: 39 (2023), 1â45.
MartÃn Gabaldón, Marta, âLa mixteca o las mixtecas, ¿un espacio sociohistórico marcadamente heterogéneo?â, in Hermann Lejarazu, Manuel A. (coord.), CartografÃa mixteca. Estudios interdisciplinarios sobre territorios y comunidades, Zinacantepec 2023, 19â37.
MartÃnez, Hildeberto, Tepeaca en el siglo XVI. Tenencia de la tierra y organización de un señorÃo, México 1984.
Mendoza GarcÃa, Edgar, âLas composiciones de tierras en la Mixteca y la formación del territorio comunal de cabeceras y sujetos, siglo XVIIIâ, in Hermann Lejarazu, Manuel A. (coord.), Configuraciones territoriales en la Mixteca. Vol. 1 Estudios de Historia y AntropologÃa, México 2015, 255â279.
Mendoza GarcÃa, Edgar, âLa descomposición de un cacicazgo: composiciones de tierras y litigios entre don Fernando de Velasco cacique de Chalcatongo y sus pueblos, siglo XVIIIâ, in Hermann Lejarazu, Manuel (coord.), SeñorÃos mixtecos. Su dimensión histórica, geográfica y territorial, México 2021, 213â236.
Mendoza GarcÃa, Edgar, âApropiación territorial y conflictos: composiciones de tierras en los pueblos de indios de la AlcaldÃa Mayor de Teposcolula y Yanhuitlán, 1707â1767â, in Carrera Quezada, Sergio Eduardo and Juan Manuel Pérez Zevallos (coords.), En todos los rincones imperiales. Apropiaciones de tierras baldÃas y composiciones de propiedades agrarias en América y Filipinas (siglo XVIâXIX), México 2022, 395â437.
Menegus, Margarita, âBalance historiográfico. Reflexiones sobre el cacicazgo en la Nueva Españaâ, in Estudios de Historia Novohispana 27 (2002), 213â230.
Menegus, Margarita, La Mixteca Baja. Entre la Revolución y la Reforma. Cacicazgo, territoralidad y gobierno, siglos XVIIIâXIX, Oaxaca de Juárez 2009.
Menegus, Margarita âLa territorialidad de los cacicazgos y los conflictos con terrazgueros y los pueblos vecinos en el siglo XVIIIâ, in Roth Seneff, Andrew (ed.), Caras y máscaras del México étnico. Indigenous Participation in Mexican State Formations, vol. I, Zamora 2010, 73â94.
Menegus, Margarita, âCacicazgos y repúblicas de indios en el siglo XVI. La transformación de la propiedad en la Mixtecaâ, in Hermann, Manuel (coord.), Configuraciones territoriales en la Mixteca. Vol. 1, Estudios de historia y antropologÃa, Mexico 2015, 205â220.
Menegus, Margarita, âDel usufructo, de la posesión y de la propiedad: las composiciones de tierras en la Mixteca, Oaxacaâ in Itinerarios 25 (2017), 193â208.
Menegus, Margarita, âLas composiciones de tierras en el centro de la Nueva España y en Oaxaca. La fabricación de nuevos tÃtulos de propiedad indÃgenaâ, in Carrera Quezada, Sergio Eduardo and Juan Manuel Pérez Zevallos (coords.), En todos los rincones imperiales. Apropiaciones de tierras baldÃas y composiciones de propiedades agrarias en América y Filipinas (siglos XVIâXIX), México 2022, 367â393.
Menegus, Margarita and Rodolfo Salvador Aguirre (coords.), El cacicazgo en Nueva España y Filipinas, México 2005.
Monaghan, John, âIrrigation and Ecological Complementarity in Mixtec Cacicazgosâ, in Marcus, Joyce and Judith Francis Zeitlin (eds.), Caciques and their People. A Volume in Honor of Ronald Spores, Ann Arbor 1994, 143â161.
Ouweneel, Arij and Rik Hoekstra, Las tierras de los pueblos de indios en el altiplano de México, 1560â1920. Una aportación teórica interpretativa, Amsterdam 1998.
Pastor, Rodolfo, Campesinos y reformas: la Mixteca 1700â1856, Mexico 1987.
Peset, Mariano and Margarita Menegus, âRey propietario y o rey soberanoâ, in Historia Mexicana 43:4 (1994), 563â599.
Pohl, John M.D., âAncient Books: Mixtec Group Codices. Codex Bodleyâ, in Johnâs Pohl Mesoamerica [online], FAMSI 2003. http://www.famsi.org/research/pohl/jpcodices/bodley/index.html
Quezada, Sergio, Maya Lords and Lordship: the Formation of Colonial Society in Yucatán, 1350â1600, Norman 2014.
RodrÃguez Cano, Laura, âApuntes sobre la herencia de los cacicazgos en la Mixteca Baja durante el siglo XVIâ, in Guerrero Galván, Luis René and Alonso Guerrero Galván (eds.), Construcción histórico-jurÃdica del derecho prehispánico y su transformación ante el derecho indiano, México 2019, 69â94.
Romero Frizzi, MarÃa de los Ãngeles, EconomÃa y vida de los españoles en la Mixteca Alta: 1519â1720, México 1990.
Solano, Francisco, Cedulario de tierras. Compilación de legislación agraria colonial (1497â1820), Mexico 1991.
Spores, Ronald, âMarital Alliance in the Political Integration of Mixtec Kingdoms,â in American Anthropologist 76:2 (1974), 297â311.
Spores, Ronald, The Mixtecs in ancient and colonial times, Norman 1984.
Spores, Ronald, âMixteca Cacicas: Status, Wealth, and the Political Accommodation of Native Elite Women in Early Colonial Oaxaca,â in Schroeder, Susan, Stephanie Wood and Robert Haskett (eds.), Indian Women of Early Mexico, Norman 1997, 185â395.
Spores, Ronald, Ãuu Ãudzahui la Mixteca de Oaxaca: la evolución de la cultura mixteca desde los primeros pueblos preclásicos hasta la Independencia, Oaxaca de Juárez 2007.
Taylor, William B., Terratenientes y campesinos en la Oaxaca colonial, Oaxaca de Juárez 1998.
Terraciano, Kevin, âThe Colonial Mixtec Communityâ, in Hispanic American Historical Review 80:1 (2000), 1â42.
Terraciano, Kevin, Los mixtecos de la Oaxaca colonial. La historia ñudzahui del siglo XVI al XVIII, Mexico 2013.
Yannakakis, Yanna, Since Time Immemorial. Native Custom & Law in Colonial Mexico, Durham 2023.