1 Introduction
On 25 October 1881, the representatives of the Aragonese town councils of Ansó and Hecho met at the borderline between the valleys, in the area called la Escarroneta. The purpose of the meeting was to maintain good relationships between the two and to solve any issues that may have arisen regarding grazing on the pastures between both valleys. The municipal corporations agreed that the relationships between them would continue to be regulated according to an agreement called concordia. The minutes of the meeting state:
And second, and considering the concordia as a document that settles the regime and procedures that the town councils of Ansó and Hecho must follow, [it has been decided] that it [the agreement must] be considered as being in force both in practice and in court for all the situations stipulated and defined in the concordia, and if it was suspected that its clauses could be violated by any law or authority, both municipalities may appeal to higher echelons requesting that all its covenants have force and vigour.1
In short, the town councils agreed that the compromise would be respected even if any authority or law contradicted its covenants. They would defend the pact in court and would share the costs. Interestingly, the agreement had been signed almost three centuries earlier, in 1604, and was one among many other pacts and agreements between the valleys of Ansó and Hecho. The 1604 pact was a concordia, a compromise between the valley councils to regulate the possession and use of common pastures. These pacts lasted decades, sometimes centuries, and were constantly redefined by conflicts and negotiations between the signing parties and were revived through meetings of the corporations at the boundaries of both valleys.
This Chapter intends to explain how the ownership, possession, and use of grassland were regulated in the Aragonese Pyrenees between the late medieval period and the 19th century. Even though the text focuses on the valleys of Ansó and Hecho, the actors, negotiations, procedures, and legal formulae used in this region were very similar to those of the rest of the mountain range, both on the Northern and Southern slopes. The Chapter aims to examine the production, form, interpretation, and implementation of norms regarding the property and possession of pastures which were commons of both valleys. Historiography has emphasised that the notion of ownership prior to the 19th century was different from the regimes which took shape and were consolidated after the rise of the modern, liberal states.2 Property was the result of practices, that is, of regular human actions, defined by and defining the context in which they are performed.3 Due to their normative character, practices usually gave rise to conflicts which had to be solved through negotiations. This is to say that ownership, possession, and use were constantly negotiated.4
The legal instruments used by the actors, corporations, and communities varied and were interpreted differently throughout the medieval, early modern, and modern periods. However, the formulae were widespread in the Iberian worldâand beyondâand present many similarities. It is therefore surprising that they have received so little historiographical attention. The instruments must be contextualised in the wider framework of the convenientiae or compromise contracts which were shaped by uses and customs but offered considerable margin for negotiation between the parties involved.5 The so-called pacerÃas or passeries are the best-known example of these formulae. These agreements, whose name probably derives from the Latin word âpaxâ (peace), were signed by French and Spanish valleys to settle disputes and to ensure good relationships among them in certain areas, such as trade, the transit of people, and the use of natural resources, especially pastures.6 Some of the instruments examined in this Chapter are identical to these pacerÃas, but they have received far less historiographical attention.7 The predominance both in qualitative and quantitative terms of compromise contracts, such as the sentencias arbitrales (arbitration agreement) and concordias (compromise agreements) over judicial sentences, is a clear demonstration of the preference of locals for negotiation and pact over litigation in court. As argued below, this can be explained by the lower cost, faster resolution and higher effectiveness and flexibility of the agreements in comparison with the verdict of judges.
Leaving aside the idealisation of the pacts by some older studies, more recent works are rather descriptive and make assumptions regarding the existence and capacity of the state prior to the 19th century. For some authors, it is clear that the state, whatever or whoever it was, tended to curtail local autonomy and to intervene in local affairs, especially from the 18th century onwards. They also assert that the state played a key role in the decline of the agreements.8 This Chapter intends to observe those pacts from a different perspective. The starting premise here is that the modern state did not exist prior to the mid-18th century. The polities to which the valleys of Ansó and Hecho belongedâthe Crown of Aragon first and the Hispanic monarchy laterâwere polycentric, plural, and jurisdictional political entities.9 In practical terms, this means that, even though the Aragonese monarchs had granted the valleys the possession and use of pastures through privileges and charters in the medieval period, thereafter the valley councils discussed the validity of the privileges and regulated how, when, and by whom grassland was owned and exploited. Although the monarch continued to be the supreme arbiter, access to land was decided by those corporations in a largely autonomous way.10 Thus, this Chapter explores how the valley councillors, officers, shepherds, and inhabitants of Ansó and Hecho produced and put into practice norms regarding the possession, ownership, and use of the términos, montes, puertos, and partidasâthe different terms used to name grasslandâbetween the 17th and 19th centuries.
To do so, sources from local and regional archives have been examined. There are no documents of the conflicts between the valleys in the archives of the monarchy, as those issues were solved in Saragossa, the Aragonese capital, and, above all, in the local arenas. The funds of the court of the Justicia de Aragón and the Real Audiencia, which are preserved in the Archivo Histórico Provincial de Zaragoza, contain some lawsuits between both valley councils. The interest of the records of the trials lies in the arguments used by the actors to ascertain their rights over grassland: they invoked immemorial possession, uninterrupted use or the leasing of pastures, just to cite a few. Yet the lawsuits are not as important as the sources of the local archives. As the medieval and early modern documents of the municipal archives of Hecho were lost during the Peninsular War (1808â1814), the backbone of this Chapter are the documents of Ansóâs municipal archives. The use of municipal sources is rather uncommon, as well as one of the main strengths of this Chapter. There are studies focused on remote villages and valleys, but they mainly rely on royal laws and ordinances kept in regional archives. The funds of municipal archives, usually poorly classified and organised, allow historians to explore the daily practice of the pacts between Pyrenean valleys through different types of sources, ranging from the minutes of the valley councils to the agreements between valleys.11 The pre-eminence of local sources in this Chapter is an eloquent demonstration of the highly local character of the regulation of the possession and use of land before the modern era.
To analyse these instruments and the practices associated with them in detail, and for the sake of clarity, the diverse types of documents are examined in separate sections. The following section briefly introduces the institutional structure and legal status of the valleys of Ansó and Hecho, together with the pastures that were under dispute and the medieval and early modern precedents of the conflicts between both valleys. The third section examines the abovementioned concordia from 1604 and other agreements and sentencias arbitrales of the 17th century. The fourth section explores the performance of those pacts through the meetings of the representatives of the valley councils, the imposition of fines, and the examination of milestones between the 17th and 19th centuries.
2 The Valley Councils and Their Privileges over Grassland
Towns and villages on both slopes of the Pyrenees were organised into valleys. Even though every locality had its own council, the villages of the same valley met in a general assembly.12 This was the case for Ansó and Hecho. While the former consisted of two localities, namely the town of Ansó and the village of Fago, Hecho had a varying composition throughout the medieval and the early modern period. The main town was Hecho, and the villages of Urdués and Siresa were also part of the valley for some periods. Normally the head towns of the valley had more representatives, power, and influence at the meetings of the valley council. Both the towns and the valleys were corporations, that is, their assemblies, magistrates, and officers exerted jurisdiction over all of their respective territories.13 The life of the communities was regulated by the ordinances they formed that the king approved through his officers. The ordinances regulated the functioning of the offices and institutions and determined how, when and by whom pastures and forests could be exploited, the fines and punishments in case of infringement, the supervising officers, etcetera.14
Grassland was central in the Pyrenean economies, which were based on cattle breeding. According to the availability of grass, pastures were divided into carefully regulated categories. Every piece of grassland was reserved for certain animal species and opened and closed at different times of the year. Mountain pastures, for instance, were exploited from approximately May to September, when sheep moved to the lowland in the phenomenon known as transhumance. As in almost every Pyrenean valley, the economies of Ansó and Hecho were mainly based on sheep breeding. The inhabitants of the valleys also raised cattle, goats, and oxen, as well as horses and pigs, but the bulk of the animals wereâand in some cases still areâsheep.15
Figure 7.1
Eighteenth-century sketch of the Ansó Valley. The pastures which were under dispute were on the right side of the picture, around number 23, the item called Guarrinza.
Archivo Histórico Provincial de Zaragoza, C/MPGD/120.
To feed their flocks, Hecho and Ansó enjoyed wide areas of grassland. Pastures had been granted to the valleys by the medieval monarchs as a reward for their loyalty and their defence of the frontiers against the French and the Navarrese. In the case of Hecho, the privileges that endowed the valley with land date from 1122, from the reign of Alfonso I of Aragon, and were ratified by his successors in Aragon and the Hispanic monarchy until 1758, when Fernando VI ratified them for the last time.16 As for Ansó, in 1234 Jaime I of Aragon promulgated a privilege by which he granted the valley the partidas and términos (areas of grassland), which still belong to Ansó and Fago (see Figure 7.1). The privilege was ratified by other kings, such as Pedro IV of Aragon, Carlos I, and Fernando el Católico.17 Although the privilege was ratified for the last time in 1626 by King Felipe IV, royal confirmation was neither the only nor the main or most frequent form of proving possession.18 Ownership and possession over the pastures were ratified through trials and judicial sentences, especially through the lawsuit called âfirmaâ or âjurisfirmaâ, by which the Justicia de Aragón, during the foral period, and the Real Audiencia, after 1711, inhibited any judge from disturbing the possessor of an asset or right in his/her possession. The claimant had to argue why those assets or rights belonged to or were possessed by him/her. The valleys of Hecho and Ansó resorted to this legal formula to ensure the possession of some pastures.19 Similarly, when the valley councillors or the proxies of the valley councils signed agreements, they accepted the partiesâ ownership, possession, and/or rights of use over land. The acceptance was later invoked as a recognition of ownership and/or possession.
The pastures which were under dispute are located between the two valleys, near the headwaters of the river Aragón Subordán. Today, this area is called Guarrinza and belongs to Ansó and Hecho jointly, but in the medieval and early modern period it was known as Soasqui. By virtue of Jaime Iâs privilege from 1234, Soasqui and other pastures close to it (Segarra, Allarat, Reclusa, Estibiella, Tortiella) came to be the property of the Ansó Valley. As in almost every Pyrenean valley, many lands that belonged to Hecho and Ansó were commons, i.e., they could be freely used by the vecinos (literally, neighbours; inhabitants of the valleys).20 This does not mean that they could be used at whim. As mentioned above, commons were thoroughly regulated by the valley councils. They established periods for the use of grassland, limits on the number of heads of livestock that could graze in every pasture, officers to supervise and impose fines on those who contravened the norms, among others: a series of rules, in short, to ensure the sustainable exploitation of the commons.21
Figure 7.2
Modern map of the partida called Guarrinza (previously Soasqui).
Catalog of Montes de Utilidad Pública of Aragon;
From the very moment of the concession of the privilege by Jaime I to Ansó in 1234, conflicts between the two valleys arose. The sheep breeders of Hecho wanted to keep using the pastures that had been granted to Ansó. The monarch ordered that, although the pastures belonged to Ansó, the vecinos of both valleys would be allowed to use the grassland. But disputes persisted and, in the early 14th century, one of King Jaime II of Aragonâs officers tried to settle them by issuing a sentence. There was a period of 100 years of relative peace but, from the early 15th century, conflicts between Ansó and Hecho reappeared. The council of Hecho argued that the ecclesiastical Chapter of San Pedro de Siresa had been granted the pastures that belonged to Ansó centuries before the promulgation of the privilege of Jaime I (1234). The monastery was an independent ecclesiastical corporation, but it was located in the Hecho Valley and was closely related to it. Seven people from Hecho and eight from Ansó died in fights between them, and the attempts of the king and his officers to settle the disputes were in vain.22
The conflict came to an end thanks to a sentencia arbitral promulgated in 1431. This instrument was a verdict given by one or more arbiters, generally appointed by the involved parties who were incapable of reaching an agreement by themselves. In some cases, the arbiters were not appointed by the parties, but by a third party, for instance, a king or a bishop; this normally happened when the conflict was acrimonious. Arbiters were usually noblemen, local authorities, magistrates, and/or clergymen. Sometimes, as in one of the cases mentioned below, the arbiters were locals, people who knew the terrain and the history of the opposing parties firsthand.23 In other cases, for example, in the abovementioned Tribute of the Three Cows, the parties resorted to non-locals to give a sentencia arbitral. In that case, the valleys of Roncal and Barétous appointed some officers and vecinos from Ansó as arbiters.24 When new conflicts arose, the arbiters acted as mediators and impartial interpreters of the sentencia, whose clauses were binding and could not be contested. Therefore, the parties gave up the possibility of appealing to higher authorities. In theory, nothing but a later agreement between the parties could derogate the clauses of a sentencia arbitral, but, in practice, conflicts arose as a consequence of opposed interpretations of the pacts by the parties. In any case, the advantages of this formula vis-à -vis judicial sentences include lower costs, swifter resolutions, and better adaptations of the verdict to the local circumstances, as arbiters knew, sometimes first-hand, the reality of the parties and/or the issue under dispute.
In 1431, the arbiter was a nobleman named Ximeno de Urrea. He listened to the representatives of both Ansó and Hecho, who presented their privileges and tried to prove their rights over the pastures in dispute, and eventually gave a verdict. The arbiter decided that Soasqui, Segarra, Allarat, and Reclusa belonged to Ansó; however, he also established that the vecinos of Hecho could use Soasqui freely and the rest of the pastures with some restrictions. The agreement was to last 101 years.25 Tomás Faci and Laliena López point out that the sentencia arbitral of 1431 represented a milestone in the relationships and agreements between Ansó and Hecho, as it laid down the guidelines for the possession and exploitation of the pastures between both valleys. Nevertheless, they also explain that the sentencia did not put an end to the disputes and they enumerate and briefly describe other pacts signed between both valleys to define the limits of the valleys and to regulate the use of grassland.26 Here the most relevant early modern precedents of the 17th-century agreements are succinctly described.
In 1516, the representatives of Ansó, Hecho and the Chapter of San Pedro de Siresa inspected the milestones that marked the limits of the valleys. These examinations, called âvistaâ, âvisuraâ or âmojonaciónâ, consisted in inspecting the signs with the shape of a cross carved in rocks (âmugasâ, âbuegasâ, âmojonesâ)âwhich were in the borderline between the valleysâand renewing those that were no longer visible.27 In the case of the mojonación of 1516, it is worth noting that the ecclesiastical Chapter of Siresa was very present, as the valley council of Hecho had used the privileges of the ancient monastery to claim rights over the pastures that belonged to Ansó. In any case, the parties constantly alluded to the âspirit of iniquityâ that had existed between them and insisted that they had to preserve the harmonious relationship they had built. The representatives of the valleys and the chapter of Siresa examined the milestones of Landarrera, Reclusa, Allarat, Estibiella, Tortiella, Sayestico, Laliena, Lajerito and Maquerán, that is, of the partidas that surrounded Soasqui.28
Three years later, in 1519, the valleys of Hecho and Ansó resorted again to the mediation of arbiters to solve their differences regarding the passes that gave access to the pastures they both exploited. Unlike the previous sentencia arbitral, which was dictated by a mediator who was not from the valleys, in 1519 the arbiters were local authoritiesâalcaldes and jurados of Ansó and Hecho, and vecinos of both townsâtogether with people from other localities, such as a notary from the town of Sos del Rey Católico. The sentencia arbitral included a mojonación. For instance, the first pass (paso in the sources) whose use was discussed was the so-called âestrecho de Bubaloâ. The local authorities of Hecho âhave pretended and still pretend from immemorial time until today that they have the right, use and possession of passing with their livestockâ without permission from the town council of Ansó.29 The arbiters first examined the limits of the pass by inspecting and renewing the milestones. Then, they decided that the vecinos of the Valley of Hecho could use the pass whenever they wished, both up and down the mountain. They also determined that the guards of the pastures appointed by the town council of Ansó could not prevent them from going through the pass. The same process was repeated with other passes, such as Celia, Navasal, and el Achar de la Forca. One of the parties claimed its right to use the pass, the milestones were inspected and the right to use it was granted by the arbiters.30
Another sentencia arbitral was issued by the Archbishop of Saragossa, Hernando de Aragón, in 1570. It regarded the partidas of Allarat and Segarra. The clergyman decided that, if there were more than 1,200 heads of Ansóâs livestock in those pastures, the herds of Hecho could not enter.31 In the 1590s, conflicts over the use of Soasqui arose again. The parties did not manage to reach a pact regarding the limits of the common pastures. In 1593, the Real Audiencia of Aragon issued a judicial sentence which confirmed that the término of Soasqui and the land granted by King Jaime I to Ansó legitimately belonged to that valley. The court ruling is particularly interesting because it contains the arguments and evidence provided by the attorney of Ansó. He invoked the use and possession of land since time immemorial, the imposition of fines and the leasing of pastures to foreign herders as a demonstration that all those partidas were owned by Ansó.32 In 1596 a new revision of the boundaries between the valleys took place. It was ordered by the king himself through the Real Audiencia and executed by the Justicia de Jaca (a judicial officer of the main city of the Aragonese Pyrenees), hence its name, âmojonación realâ. The disputes would not be settled until 1600 and 1604, when another sentencia arbitral and a concordia were signed.33
The wide areas of grassland located on the borderline between Ansó and Hecho were under dispute for centuries. Even though the land had been granted to the valley councils by the Aragonese monarchs through privileges, the possession and use of land were controversial and had to be continually negotiated. Both corporations, together with the ecclesiastical Chapter of Siresa, claimed rights over grassland and several mountain passes. Solutions did not come from above, from the monarchs or the royal courts, but generally from below, from the local actors and corporations. After bloody conflicts, they devised formulae to regulate the possession and use of land, recognising Ansóâs jurisdiction over the partidas and términos but granting rights of use to the vecinos of Hecho. The pacts had to be periodically renewed, as conflicts did not cease to arise.
3 The End of the Disputes: The 17th-Century Sentencias and Concordia
In the 17th and 18th centuries, the local authorities, vecinos and sheep breeders of Hecho continued to contest the exclusive possession of grassland by Ansó through their practices: they drove their flocks to graze into Ansóâs pastures, they built a bridge to facilitate the access of their cattle into the grassland, and they chopped wood in the partidas. The local authorities and guards of Ansó considered that these practices threatened or directly violated the sentencias arbitrales that had been signed in the Middle Ages, and conflicts arose again. However, in the 17th century the valleys signed a series of agreements that settled their differences and laid the foundations for a more stable and peaceful relationship. In addition to the verdicts of the Aragonese Real Audiencia and Justicia, the valleys of Ansó and Hecho signed several sentencias arbitrales and, for the first time, a concordia. Those would be the norms that served as the basis for the management of the common pastures and passes between the late 17th and early 20th centuries.
The first of those agreements was the sentencia arbitral approved in Saragossa in 1600. Ansó and Hecho had several lawsuits, âboth civil and criminalâ, over the possession of the pastures.34 Both valley councils decided to give up litigation and settle their differences by appointing arbiters who issued a sentence to solve the disputes over the broad area of Soasqui and other términos close to it, such as Estibiella, Allarat, and Segarra. The passage of the flocks had to be regulated too. The arbiters of the sentencia were the Viceroy and the Gobernador General of the Kingdom of Aragon. As in any other sentencia arbitral, they ordered the parties to accept their verdict and to cease all conflicts and lawsuits against each other. If one of the parties accused the other of breaching the agreement, its accusation would be immediately accepted, without having to present any proof. The councils of Ansó and Hecho, as well as the clergymen of Siresa, secured their oath with all their assets and rights. In the event of a violation of the sentencia, the offended party could resort to whichever judicial authority it wished. Furthermore, the representatives of the valleys gave up their right to appeal to their own judges, as well as the advantages and rights that the Aragonese fueros offered. If there was any doubt regarding the contents and application of the sentencia, the valley councils should ask the arbiters or their successors in their offices.
The first issue addressed by the sentencia was the possession and use of Soasqui. Many sentences and pacts had been issued to solve the disputes over that big término, but conflicts persisted. The arbiters ratified that Soasqui belonged to Ansó, so the valley council would exert jurisdiction over it. The vecinos and herbajantes of Hecho could nevertheless lead their herds to Soasqui, so they could graze there, as they had done since time immemorial.35 Livestock could enter Soasqui from 15 June. Fines for those who contravened the order were defined. Both valley councils would appoint guards of the pastures on the second day of Easter. In case of doubts about the use of Soasqui, they would resort to the abovementioned Justicia de Jaca y sus Montañas.
The possession and use of other partidas were regulated too. Reclusa remained untouched. Regarding Allarat and Segarra, the arbiters ratified previous sentencias arbitrales, namely those promulgated by Ximeno de Urrea in 1431 and by Archbishop Hernando de Aragón in 1560. The partidas belonged to Ansó, but the vecinos of Hecho could use them if there were less than 1,200 heads of Ansóâs livestock on them. Moreover, the Viceroy and the Gobernador General of Aragon established that the herds of the Hecho Valley could enter Allarat and Segarra if the herds of vecinos or herbajantes from Ansó had left them for longer than one day and one night. As for the partida of Estibiella, the arbiters recognised that debates over its limits were still heated. The âmojonación realâ mentioned above had not settled the differences between Ansó and Hecho, so they put forward another mojonaciónâalthough, as shown below, it did not work. Finally, the arbiters established fines for those whose livestock grazed where or when it should not. Nevertheless, the herds of the valleys could use the partidas in common and the passes of the other party.36
Even though it represented a milestone in the normalisation of the relationships between Hecho and Ansó, the sentencia arbitral of 1600 did not settle the disputes completely, apparently. Four years later, in June 1604, the valley councils signed a new pact.37 On that occasion, there was no arbiter, hence the agreement was not a sentencia arbitral, but a concordia. The main difference between both types of pacts is that while the terms of the sentencia arbitral are decided by one or more arbiters appointed by the parties, in the concordia the local authorities or their representatives negotiated the clauses of the pact themselves. The aims of both the sentencias and the concordias were identical, namely, to restore the peace between both communities, and both were neither according to law nor against it; however, while the sentencia arbitral was a sort of external decision, the concordia was an endogenous compromise. Just like sentencias arbitrales, concordias were widespread in the Spanish world.38 In fact, any compromise, no matter the parties involved, was called concordia. Thus, the fiscal pacts between the king and the ecclesiastical estate were concordias, and so were the debt-restructuring agreements negotiated by the town councils and their creditors in the Crown of Aragon. Even the pacts to share out an inheritance or fiscal burdens were concordias too. Any kind of compromise or agreement which was not determined by law and did not contradict it could be called concordia.39 The advantages of this mechanism vis-à -vis litigation are obvious: they were less expensive and time consuming, and solutions were more satisfactory for all parties than a trial would offer, hence the greater stability of the agreements; besides, the pacts left room for renegotiation of the resulting regime.
The concordia of 1604 was a 24-covenant agreement that regulated the use of pastures and passes, the fines in case of infringement depending on the type of livestock and on the place where the violation took place, the examination of milestones, and determining the people who were entitled to seize livestock. It therefore was a long text with many clauses to ensure that all the parties complied with it. The councils of the two valleys and the Chapter of Siresa committed themselves, all their assets and those of the vecinos of the villages and towns of the valleys to fulfil the pact. If any party breached the pact, the offended party could request any judge, either ecclesiastical or secular, to foreclose the assets until satisfied. They gave up the jurisdiction of their own judges. Moreover, they ratified the sentencia arbitral of 1600 except in those clauses in which the concordia contradicted it; for these, the covenants of the newest agreement would prevail. They agreed that every lawsuit between them would cease within two months.
As in the case of the sentencia arbitral approved four years earlier, the first article of the concordia was devoted to Soasqui, more specifically to the partida of Aznar Malo. The parties defined the limits of the partida through a mojonación and decided that both could use it. Regarding grazing in Soasqui, the concordia established that the herds of the vecinos of the valleys and their herbajantes could enter the término from 1 June of every year, notwithstanding previous agreements. The pact also established fines and defined the procedures for seizing livestock. It contained a general mojonación of Soasqui too. The parties explicitly recognised that the partidas of Lajerito and Sabucar were not part of Soasqui, but the herders and herbajantes of Hecho and Siresa were allowed to use their pastures. Several articles of the concordia revolved around the seizing of livestock. Fines varied according to the type of livestockâthey were higher for bigger animalsâand the place where they were captured. The jurisdiction of these fines corresponded to the judges and town councils of Ansó and Hecho, and there was no possibility of appealing to other judicial authorities. The passage of herds was carefully regulated too. The fees for trespassing the otherâs partidas were specified and the limits of those pastures were also clearly defined, together with the direction of the herds when they went through them.40 Finally, the concordia established that the parties would be obliged to revise the milestones that marked the limits of every término and partida every three years, starting on 1 July and not stopping until the examination concluded, âto avoid litigations and differences between the parties, so they live with peace and quietness that God Our Lord desiresâ.41 Nevertheless, it seems that this clause was not fulfilled.
The concordia of 1604 rectified some aspects of the sentencia arbitral of 1600 and ratified many others. For the parties, the pact represented an instrument with which they could solve the conflicts over the possession and use of the término of Soasqui and the passes for the herds of Ansó and Hecho. Broadly speaking, the authorities of Hecho and Siresa assumed the privileges of Jaime I that granted Ansó all the pastures which were in the limits between both valleys and, in turn, the council of Ansó had to accept that the vecinos and herbajantes of the neighbouring valley could exploit those pastures under the same conditions that they did. Though obvious, it is worth emphasising that the ownership, possession, and use of land were regulated by the corporations themselves in a rather autonomous way. They appointed arbiters to solve their differences, discussed the limits of every partida or simply negotiated among themselves to avoid expensive, endless, and often futile litigation. Monitoring, fines, seizing of livestock and the appointment of officers and judges depended, in short, on the valley councils.
Nevertheless, the concordia had to be modified in 1651, as some norms did not work as the valley councils had expected. The formula they used was called âadiciónâ, which could be translated into English as âaddendumâ. Just like the concordia, the adición was negotiated by representatives of both valleys. The agreement did not derogate the original pact, but clarified some clauses and added some norms. Thus, the seizing of cattle was regulated again, establishing different procedures and fines, prohibiting the slaughter of livestock in the common pastures again, establishing severe punishments for those who contravened the norm, and settling new fines for those whose flocks entered into specific pastures and fields. The parties agreed that, instead of inspecting the milestones in the borderline between the valleys every three years, as the concordia of 1604 said, they would revise the milestones every six years, starting in 1652. Furthermore, the representatives of the valley councils decided that they would meet every year on the abovementioned partida of la Escarroneta, on the feast of Saint Luke (18 October), to solve the disputes that may have arisen throughout the previous year. The authorities should be at the frontier at 10 in the morning or they would have to pay 200 sueldos to the other party.42 As explained in the following section, the representatives of the valley met regularly at la Escarroneta until the 1920s.
Leaving aside Soasqui, the limits, ownership, possession, and use of other areas of grassland continued to be sources of conflict for some decades. The partida called Estibiella was one of the burning issues. After the signing of the concordia, the town councillors of Ansó consulted a jurist about the legal status of the partida. Its limits had been defined in the mojonación real of 1596, redefined in 1600 through the sentencia arbitral, and again some years later by the same officer who had carried out the mojonación real. The town councillors of Ansó asked the lawyer whether the last definition of the limits was final and binding. The jurist answered that the last mojonación should prevail. The local authorities of Ansó also asked him about the seizing of livestock made by some vecinos of Hecho in Estibiella. They wanted to know whether they should be accused and before whom. The lawyer recommended them to file a lawsuit before the local justice of Ansó, since the Justicia de Aragón had no jurisdiction over that kind of affair. The source also reveals that the concordia of 1604 was not being fulfilled, as the councillors of Ansó asked the lawyer about the possibility of claiming the fines established in the agreement in the event of a breach, as the valley councillors of Hecho had breached the clause of examining the milestones of the pastures every three years. The lawyer confirmed that they could accuse them of breaching the pact. Finally, the authorities of Ansó asked if they should ask a judicial authority to seize (âaprehenderâ) a partida, the Faja de la Rueba. The lawyer answered that the best court to refer this to was the Real Audiencia.43
A few years later, in 1623, the councillors of Ansó resorted to the Justicia de Aragón to ask for protection for the puertos of Estibiella and Tortiella. To gain a firma (legal protection) from the judge, the attorney of Ansó had to justify the possession of the land by the valley council of Ansó. First, he defined the valley of Ansó as the town of Ansó and the village of Fago and recalled its limits, which were publicly known since time immemorial. Second, he recalled the limits of Estibiella and Tortiella, which had been recognised by Hecho and Siresa in the mojonaciones. Third, and more importantly, he argued that the valley council and vecinos of Ansó were the âtrue lords and ownersâ (âverdaderos señores y poseedoresâ) of Estibiella and Tortiella, as their flocks had grazed there for centuries, they had cut wood, they had appointed guards to watch the pastures and seize livestock and they had leased grassland to foreign herders continuously since time immemorial. The Justicia accepted the arguments of the attorney of Ansó and executed the firma of the two puertos.44
The conflict over Estibiella would be solved through another sentencia arbitral, approved in 1664 and ratified in 1665. In this case, the process preceding the promulgation of the sentencia is known thanks to the notarial archives of Ansó. A presbyter of the ecclesiastical Chapter of Siresa, a representative of the valley of Hecho and another of the valley of Ansó met and appointed four arbiters and four clergymen, two from Hecho and two from Ansó.45 They were asked to dictate a sentence within four months. The parties committed all their assets and revenues to respect and observe the decision of the arbiters.46 In fact, the sentencia arbitral was a new mojonación of some partidas whose limits had been discussed until then. Together with surveyors from Ansó and Hecho, the arbiters examined the crosses that marked the limits of every partida and renewed or carved new crosses on the surfaces of the milestones. The limits of Estibiella were examined both in its lower and upper parts. The arbiters established that the herds of the vecinos and herbajantes of Ansó could not trespass the limits of Estibiella and Sayestico, while the herds of Hecho could move through Estibiella to their own land without permission from Ansó. The milestones of another partida, Aznar Malo, were also revised and redefined. As in the other sentencias arbitrales, the parties committed themselves to obey the pact. They would also give up any privilege, charter, judge, lawsuit, etcetera. The mojonaciones which did not contradict this sentencia arbitral remained in force. Clauses to ensure compliance with the pact, together with fines, were established. If there were doubts or discord, the councils of Ansó and Hecho would resort to the arbiters while they were alive. Once they died, each valley could appoint an arbiter to mediate between them.47
In the 1690s, several events altered the peace that reigned among the relationships between the valleys. Further research will have to clarify whether or not the conflicts that emerged in the last decade of the 17th century were provoked by the high levels of municipal indebtedness of the valley of Ansó.48 In 1690, the valley council of Hecho, together with the ecclesiastical Chapter of Siresa, gained a firma against the valley council of Ansó regarding the partida of Soasqui. The verdict of the Justicia de Aragón included the sentencia arbitral of 1600 and the concordia of 1604 as proof that the vecinos and herbajantes from Hecho could freely use Soasqui. As in other legal documents, their rights were proved through immemorial and continuous use, the appointment of guards, the imposition of fines⦠Through the firma, any judicial authority was inhibited from intervening in any affair related to the pastures and forests of Soasqui, allowing the vecinos and herbajantes of Hecho to continue using it.49
It is likely that the valley of Ansó, at the behest of its creditors, had hindered the entry of flocks from Hecho in the partida. Like in the Middle Ages, the valley council was going through financial trouble and tried to maximise revenue by exploiting the pastures as much as they could. The creditors of Ansóâmore specifically the priests of its parochial churchâwere owed four annual payments in arrears, so they resorted to the Real Audiencia of Aragon, from which they gained an aprehensión in 1691. The aprehensión was an Aragonese foral trial by which a judicial authority took an asset or right under its protection until who it belonged to was decided. It was very frequently used in cases of default.50 Sometimes, the asset was entrusted to a third party. In this case, the Audiencia gave temporary control of Soasqui to the town of Berdún, as the priests did not trust any other town or valley council. The verdict of the Audiencia forbade the vecinos and herbajantes of Hecho to cut green wood in Soasqui.51
It is not clear how long the partida remained under the control of the creditors but, in 1692, the town councillors of Ansó sent some questions to a lawyer in Saragossa. They were considering the possibility of altering the terms of the sentencia arbitral, approved almost a century earlier in 1600, as they thought that the council and vecinos of Hecho pretended to have the same rights over Soasqui as they had. A councillor and some herders from Hecho had cut wood to build a bridge over a creek so their livestock could enter the partida. The town councillors of Ansó asked the jurist whether it would be convenient to negotiate with the valley councillors of Hecho or whether it would be more effective to file a lawsuit against them. The lawyer answered that it would be better to negotiate within the framework of the sentencia arbitral, saying that âsolving the differences among neighbouring communities through a sentencia arbitral is always a more accurate means, as it is faster than lawsuits that cause delayâ.52 Even non-local actors preferred compromise over trials, as they knew that concordias and sentencias arbitrales meant lower expenses and consumed less time than endless legal processes.53
Apparently, the authorities of Ansó never acted against their vecinos of Hecho, since both valley councils were acting jointly by the turn of the century, as shown in the next section. The conflicts that had afflicted the valleys of Ansó and Hecho for centuries were finally settled through negotiations and the signing of agreements in the 17th century. Both corporationsâas well as the ecclesiastical Chapter of Siresaâagreed that the pastures of the borderline between both valleys belonged to Ansó and that they could be exploited by both parties under certain conditions. Therefore, the property, possession and use of land were not determined by royal privileges, courts and officersâeven if local actors periodically invoked them and resorted to their authority and legitimacyâbut by the people and corporations who claimed rights to them.54
Figure 7.3
Timeline of the sentencias arbitrales and concordias signed by the valley councils
Own elaboration based on the sources cited in the text
4 Reinterpreting the Agreements through Performance
The pacts between the valleys laid the foundations for a more stable and harmonious coexistence and use of the pastures. Even though no new agreement was signed after 1665, the sentencias arbitrales and concordias were periodically renewed and reinterpreted through the inspection of the milestones that marked the boundaries of the valleys and the partida of Soasqui, as well as the meetings between the two corporations to judge the fines imposed by the guards and the seizing of livestock. As explained above, sources are not simply concordias or mojonaciones, but normally combine the regulation of the management of the pastures by the authorities that exert jurisdiction over them with the definition of the limits of every puerto, partida, and paso. Rather than the mechanical application of the clauses, the vistas and mojonaciones were a sort of ritual through which the representatives of both valleys performed the pacts, usually readapting the norms to new situations and conflicts.
The inspection of the milestones (in the sources called âvisuraâ, âvistaâ, âmojonaciónâ) was very similar to what municipalities all over the Spanish monarchy (and beyond) did since the Middle Ages.55 The examination of the successive inspections reveals that the procedure was always the same.56 The representatives of both valley councils arranged a meeting at some point on the frontier. The meeting could be either stipulated by a pact between the parties or at the behest of one of them. Normally the highest authorities of every valley attended the meeting (justicia and jurados in the pre-Bourbon period, alcalde, regidores, and/or sÃndico procurador after 1707), together with witnesses from both parties and two notaries, one from each town, to witness the meeting. They all started walking up and down the mountains, checking that the crosses on the milestones were in a good state and visible; if they were not, they were carved again. This could take several days, as the frontier between the valleys was long and the terrain was usually steep.
After the mojonación real of 1596, the buegas, mugas, or mojones (milestones) were examined in 1619, 1640, and 1652, at least. Although it was a sentencia arbitral, the agreement of 1665 included a mojonación, as the arbiters revised and redefined the limits of several partidas. In theory, the milestones had to be examined every six years, according to the addendum to the concordia (adición) approved in 1651, but in practice the inspection took place less often. Even though they followed the guidelines of the sentencia of 1665, in 1699 the valley authorities made some new crosses to redefine the extension of some partidas. For instance, the limits of Estibiella and el Pueyo de Agua had not been clearly defined in the mojonación real or in the last sentencia arbitral, so they carved new crosses to establish their limits. The valley council of Hecho and the Chapter of Siresa thought that the arbiters of the sentencia arbitral should have been consulted, as the agreement said, but still they were not. The commission examined every partida between both valleys, from Segarra to Lajerito. Interestingly, the parties clashed over the participation of the representatives of the Chapter of Siresa in the vista. The authorities of Hecho considered that the clergymen should not participate. This is important, as the valley council of Hecho had traditionally used the alleged privileges of the ecclesiastical Chapter to claim rights over the grassland that belonged to Ansó. The representative of the clergymen complained about the petition of Hecho, and so did the representatives of Ansó, who considered that the priests were entitled to participate in the examination.57
As explained above, the differences between vecinos and herders were settled by the valley authorities every year on 18 October, in the meetings called âvistas de la Escarronetaâ. Vistas were meetings in which the representatives of the valleys solved the conflicts between them according to the concordias and sentencias arbitrales they signed.58 In 1653, two years after the approval of the adición that established the meetings, the representatives of the valleys should have met, but the councillors from Hecho did not attend the meeting, so the representatives of Ansó demanded of them the fine settled in the adición (200 sueldos jaqueses). In several vistas in the 1680s there was no grievance, so the judges limited themselves to ratifying that the pacts between the valleys were in force. In 1700, both corporations fined some herders, but they did not revise the milestones. Half a century later, in 1751, they met in the same place and reaffirmed the validity of the concordia, adición, and sentencias, derogating any norm that contradicted them. They also confirmed the decisions made in 1747 regarding a puerto and set a deadline for the guards of the pastures to report on the confiscations they made or the fines they imposed. In 1752, the milestones of the borderline between the valleys were examined by members of both corporations. One year later, in 1753, the judges appointed by virtue of the concordiaâone from Ansó and the other from Hechoâagreed on the fines that the herders whose livestock had damaged pastures or fields should pay. Remarkably, no representative of the Chapter of Siresa participated in any of these vistas. According to the concordia, only the local authorities of Hecho and Ansó were judges who could decide the validity and amount of the fines.59 The same event that in the 17th century provoked an intense conflict between the valleys, namely the building of a bridge over the river of Soasqui by vecinos of Hecho, was politely resolved in 1746 through a petition of the valley council of Hecho to Ansó to send people to collaborate in the construction of a bridge. Ansó sent some vecinos and partially paid for the works.60 This demonstrates that the relationships between the valleys were good in the 18th century.
But the peaceful coexistence between the valleys achieved through the concordia and sentencias was interrupted in the 1750s. In 1754, a proxy from Hecho presented a claim before the Real Audiencia.61 He accused the vecinos and guards from Ansó of violating two clauses of the sentencia arbitral of 1600 and the concordia of 1604, two articles regarding the seizing of cattle. The proxy asked the Real Audiencia to ratify the firma gained by Hecho in 1690, thus inhibiting the vecinos and authorities from Ansó from disturbing the herders from Hecho. The Audiencia ordered an inquiry, collecting testimonies from inhabitants and herders from the neighbouring town of Aragüés del Puerto. On the basis of those testimonies, the judges accepted the petition of Hecho. But the sentence did not settle the differences as, three years later, in 1757, the valley council of Hecho again resorted to the Real Audiencia, asking the judges to order the valley councillors of Ansó to meet them in Soasqui to renew or settle the limits of the partida, as some of them were formed by trees that had been destroyed by wind and floods. The proxy of Ansó tried to dissuade the judges from ordering a new mojonación, but the oidores of the Audiencia sent a receptor (a court officer) to conduct an inquiry and collect the testimonies of inhabitants of neighbouring valleys.62 It is not clear whether the mojonación performed in 1765 and described below was the consequence of this trial, but Ansó and Hecho did not resort to third parties to solve their differences again. In any case, litigation became more intense in the mid-18th century. Demographic and economic expansion, political changes and/or more local and regional factors may have caused this change, which can be observed in the funds of the Real Audiencia. The lawsuits between herders and farmers in Northern Aragon or between the vecinos of Ansó to determine the use of the land of the valley are just two examples of the increasing litigation.63
Yet the valley councils of Ansó and Hecho managed to recompose their good relationships. In 1765, the representatives of both corporations met again in la Escarroneta and agreed that they would preserve their rights and keep the pacts between them intact. The inspection and renewal of the milestones started on 2 September in Bubalo, one of the common mountain passes. As night fell, they stopped in Landarrera. The next morning, they continued to examine the crosses and to renew those which were not visible. In total, the milestones and crosses examined amounted to 152: 57 of the término of Soasqui and 95 of other partidas. They sometimes cited the pacts in which the milestones were established. Some crosses could not be found, so they had to carve a new one or simply report its disappearance. The minutes of the mojonación include an episode that took place once the examination of the milestones had concluded: two presbyters from San Pedro de Siresa appeared and argued that the Chapter should have been asked to participate in the mojonación, as they were legally entitled to do it. The authorities of Hecho replied that the priests had no proxy from the Chapter, so they were acting as private individuals, and recalled that, according to a judicial sentence, only the valley council of Hecho had the right to intervene in the delimitation of the términos between Ansó and Hecho.
The clauses of the concordia and sentencias continued to be interpreted and performed in the following decades and throughout the 19th century. It seems there was a break in the vistas during the Peninsular War but, after this, the agreements between Ansó and Hecho were publicly renewed again. Periodically, the representatives of the two valleys met in la Escarroneta. They read the concordia and reaffirmed its validity, solved doubts regarding the interpretation of the pact and decided the fines that herders should pay, the authorities that could judge a dispute, or the pertinence of livestock confiscations. In short, they continued reviving the regime of the pacts which had been approved more than two centuries earlier.64
The mojonaciones and vistas were the ways in which the 17th-century agreements were brought into practice. The use of grassland was regulated by judges of both corporations by virtue of the sentencias arbitrales and the concordia. The disputes between the valley councils and the herders of Ansó and Hecho could be solved amicably, without resorting to external authorities and costly trials. Furthermore, the possession, limits and use of the partidas, montes and términos between both valleys were constantly renewed in a sort of public ceremony. The dominion of Ansó over grassland, as well as the right of the vecinos and herbajantes of Hecho to exploit those pastures, was publicly recognised in the meetings between the corporations.
5 Conclusions: Negotiated Ownership and Possession
The valleys of Ansó and Hechoâjust like the rest of the Pyrenean valleysâwere heavily reliant on livestock breeding and, by extension, on grassland. Pastures were the cornerstone of their societies and economies, so their councils carefully regulated their ownership, possession, and use. On the one hand, local historiography knows the actors involved and instruments used to define ownership well, but it usually contextualises them inaccurately; on the other, general historiography has convincingly challenged narratives and paradigms regarding the medieval and early modern societies, but many works still offer inexact views of how property worked, due in part to their dependence on archival sources that do not fully reflect the actual practices around the pastures.
Medieval and early modern formulae for holding land had little to do with current forms of ownership. The norms that regulated the possession and use of land were socially and historically embedded. This is to say that holding a piece of land implied negotiation with others, generally through corporations, historical legitimacy, and social recognition of possessing and using land. In the case of the pastures between Ansó and Hecho, both valley councils invoked privileges granted by the Aragonese monarchs in the Middle Ages. Even though those privileges were the original source of legitimacy to exert dominion over grassland, possession and use were performed on a daily basis. Property rights were defined by the practices of herders who led their flocks to graze in the partidas and términos between both valleys, the guards who seized livestock, and the judges who imposed fines. Sometimes those practices led to conflicts which were usually solved through agreements, such as concordias or sentencias arbitrales, rather than through expensive, long trials in far-off courts. By using those instruments, the parties, their representatives and/or the arbiters appointed by the valley councils defined the limits of each partida, monte, término, paso and puerto, and regulated when, how, and who could use each pasture and pass. They also established sanctions for those who contravened the norms, as well as mechanisms to enforce those penalties, such as guards of the pastures and judicial authorities from both valleys to judge each case.
The 17th-century sentencias arbitrales and, above all, the concordia of 1604 constituted a solid, stable, and flexible framework to jointly hold and exploit the pastures between both valleys. They were periodically renewed and performed through vistas and mojonaciones. These events had something of a public ceremony, as the representatives of both valleys read the agreements aloud, thus recognising that grassland belonged to Ansó but could be used by the vecinos and herbajantes of Hecho. In the vistas and mojonaciones they inspected and renewed the crosses on the surface of the milestones. The valley authorities also interpreted the clauses of the pacts to judge every case and revised the confiscations and fines imposed throughout the year.
It is likely that the continuous performance and reinterpretation of the pacts was the cause of their long survival. The concordia of 1604 and the sentencias arbitrales were mentioned in every meeting until 1878 and regularly thereafter. For instance, the minutes of the meeting of 1906 narrate how the councils of Ansó and Hecho met in la Escarroneta and their secretaries read the âconcordiasâ.65 Of course, the original aims of the concordia probably had little to do with the modern readings of the text. 19th- and 20th-century actors spoke about concordias in the plural and barely mentioned the sentencias arbitrales, which had been the most common type of agreement. Nonetheless, more than three centuries after the signing of the concordia of 1604, the councils and vecinos of Ansó and Hecho continued to regulate the use and possession of grassland by recreating ancient norms and practices. Both local and more general historiographies have taken for granted that the emergence of the modern state provoked either the disappearance or the denaturation of the pacts. Yet, in fact, locals continued to adapt the norms to new contexts as they had done for centuries. Why most of those pacts eventually disappeared is something that only further research can clarify.
Glossary
| adición |
addendum, in this article, to a concordia. |
| amojonamiento/mojonación |
definition of the limits of a piece of real estate, generally a field or pasture, by setting milestones all around the perimeter. |
| aprensión/aprehensión |
type of litigation of the Aragonese law by which a judicial authority took an asset or right under its protection until it was decided to whom it belonged. |
| buega/muga/mojón |
milestone. They normally had crosses carved on their surface. |
| concordia |
compromise, pact between two or more parties. It can solve a dispute on a wide range of issues (the sharing-out of an inheritance or of fiscal burdens, rescheduling the payment of debt). It is ideated by the parties involved, not by a third party. |
| firma |
type of litigation of the Aragonese law by which the Justicia de Aragón during the foral period and the Real Audiencia after 1711 inhibited any judge from disturbing the possessor of an asset or right in his/her possession. |
| herbajante |
leaseholder of the pastures of a valley or town. |
| monte |
mountain or hill; grassland. |
| pacerÃa |
agreement between a French and a Spanish valley which was intended to regulate the relationships between both, keep peace between them and/or to regulate the ownership, possession and use of natural resources such as pastures or water. |
| partida |
area within a término. |
| paso |
mountain pass. |
| puerto |
mountain pastures where sheep and cattle graze during the summer. |
| sentencia arbitral |
pact between two or more parties to settle a dispute between them. It was a verdict dictated by a third party (arbiter/s) who had been appointed by those involved in the dispute. |
| término |
wide area of grassland. |
| vecino |
inhabitant of a village, town, valley or city. He (women were usually excluded) had political rights, such as participating in the municipal assemblies, holding offices or driving his cattle to the pastures of the community. |
| vistas/visura |
meetings of two or more valleys to examine the milestones in the borderline between them and/or to solve the conflicts that had arisen according to the concordias and sentencias they had signed. |
âY segundo, que considerandose dicha Concordia como un documento que establece el regimen y marcha en que se han de producir los referidos Ayuntamientos de Ansó y Hecho, que se conceptue con fuerza y valor lo mismo particularmente que en juicio para todos los actos estipulados y definidos en la misma, y como de que por la sospecha que sus disposiciones puedan ser contrariadas por alguna ley ó autoridad, se recurra en alzada á la superioridad ambos Municipios suplicando tenga fuerza y valor en todos los artÃculos contenidos en la mismaâ; in AMA, 228/4.
Grossi, Un altro modo di possedere; Congost, âLa âgran obraâ de la propiedadâ.
Bastias Saavedra, âThe Normativity of Possessionâ, 229. A wider theoretical framework can be found in Duve, âWhat Is Global Legal History?â. For the notion of practice, see Stern, âThe Practical Turnâ.
Lana Berasain and Laborda Pemán, âEl anidamiento institucionalâ.
Grossi, El orden jurÃdico medieval, 116â118.
The best-known example of pacerÃa is the Tribute of the Three Cows, the oldest transboundary agreement in Europe still in force, signed by the Navarrese Valle de Roncal and the Bearnese Vallée de Barétous in 1375. A seminal article is Cavaillès, âUne fédération pyrénéenne sous lâancien régimeâ. It was compiled together with works by other authors in Cavaillès, Lies et passeries dans les Pyrénées. For the Tributo de las Tres Vacas, see Idoate, La comunidad del Valle de Roncal, 144â145.
Le Nail, âPrésentationâ, viiâviii. In fact, some of the agreements between valleys from different sides of the borderline were also called concordias, such as the pact signed by the valleys of Ansó and Aspe in 1608, located in AMA, 216/18.
Cavaillès, Lies et passeries dans les Pyrénées; Soulet, Les Pyrénées au XIXe siècle; RazquÃn Lizarraga et al., âLas facerÃas internacionales en el Pirineoâ. This is also visible in works from other disciplines, such as geography or ethnography; see GorrÃa Ipas, El Pirineo como espacio frontera; Pallaruelo Campo, Pastores del Pirineo.
Hespanha, As vésperas do Leviathan; Cardim et al., Polycentric Monarchies; Benton and Ross, Legal pluralism and empires.
This is very similar to what it is described in Herzog, Frontiers of possession.
In the inventories, these pacts are catalogued under simple categories, such as concordias, sentencias arbitrales, vistas or mojonaciones, among others. This classification, however, does not help to understand how the norms regarding pastures worked, as these sources were normally hybrid and included references to other texts.
Geography was not deterministic, though. With Ansó, for instance, some villages of the valley of the Veral river did not belong to the valley of Ansó (for example, Biniés), while the village of Fago, which is not located in the Veral valley, depended on the town of Ansó.
Agüero, âLas categorÃas básicas de la cultura jurisdiccionalâ.
Tomás Faci and Laliena López, Ansó, 73 and ff.; Calvo Eito, Valle de Hecho, 50â54. The successive ordinations of Ansó can be found in AMA, 223/5 and 223/6.
Fillat Estaqué et al., Pastos del Pirineo; Pallaruelo Campo, Pastores del Pirineo; Fernández Otal, La Casa de Ganaderos de Zaragoza; Gómez de Valenzuela, Documentos sobre ganaderÃa; Pascua Echegaray, Señores del paisaje; Vaccaro and Beltran, Social and ecological history of the Pyrenees.
Calvo Eito, Valle de Hecho, 55â57.
Tomás Faci and Laliena López, Ansó, 148â153. The privileges and successive confirmations can be found in AMA, 205, 219, 223, 256.
This is the last confirmation that could be located in the archives of Ansó; in AMA, 223/4.
An example of this is the firma gained by the valley council of Hecho in 1691 and quoted again below; in AHPZ, J/766/20. For the legal formula, see La Ripa y Marraco, Ilustración, 185â279.
Other pastures were the propios, that is, they belonged to the valley, but could not be exploited by the vecinos freely, but it was the valley council which decided who could use them. Those pastures were often leased under certain conditions to foreign sheep breeders, called herbajantes (from âhierbaâ, meaning grass); in Gómez de Valenzuela, Documentos sobre ganaderÃa, 18â26.
Ostrom, Governing the commons; De Moor et al., âRuling the Commonsâ; Lana Berasain and Laborda Pemán, âEl anidamiento institucionalâ.
Tomás Faci and Laliena López, Ansó, 173â178.
For further references and examples, see Baró Pazos, âLos lÃmites territorialesâ, 430â432. I thank Camilla de Freitas Macedo for this reference.
In turn, the Frenchmen mediated between Roncal and Ansó when they could not solve their conflicts autonomously. This arbitration formula was known as âtercera tierraâ; in GorrÃa Ipas, Las relaciones transfronterizas, 101â103.
AMA, 219/6.
Tomás Faci and Laliena López, Ansó, 179â182.
This procedure is further explained below, in the fourth section.
AMA, 223bis/36. Some of the names of the partidas are different today (for example, LajeritoâAcherito).
â[â¦] han pretendido y pretenden de tiempo immemorial aca estar en drcho uso y possession de passar liberamente con sus ganadosâ.
AMA, 223bis/19. For some passes, the arbiters established limits on the dates and seasons they could use them.
AMA, 256/9.
AMA, 223/13. As in the case of the sentencia arbitral, this judicial sentence also contained a mojonación.
For the mojonación real, see AMA, 223bis/20.
âassi cibiles como criminalesâ; in AMA, 223bis/41.
The vecinos and herbajantes of Hecho would not have to ask the ecclesiastical chapter of San Pedro de Siresa for permission to use the pastures. Given that the valley council of Hecho had invoked the privileges of the church of Siresa to prove that pastures did not belong to Ansó, this clause reveals that the vecinos of Hecho were not subordinated to the clergymen of Siresa.
AMA, 223bis/41.
The ecclesiastical Chapter of San Pedro de Siresa also signed the concordia.
See, for instance, the concordias between Spanish and Portuguese towns in the peninsular borderline; in Herzog, Frontiers of possession, Chapter 3. A similar formula with a different name, the so-called convenios, can be found in colonial Mexico; see, for instance, Yannakakis, Since time immemorial, 209â210.
I studied the concordias in the Crown of Aragon in my doctoral thesis, but as fiscal and, above all, as financial instruments. However, the term concordia, just like the word censo, was an umbrella term that encompassed several kinds of contracts. Arguably, the concordia was the epitome of the pre-modern political world, both in the Crown of Aragon and in the Spanish monarchy: it embodied the autonomy of every corporation to define its own rules through negotiation, the wide diversity of contracts and norms and the judicial/non-administrative character of pre-modern societies, hence the polycentrism, pluralism, and jurisdictionalism of the medieval and early modern political world. Put differently, concordias were at the core of the political culture of the Crown of Aragon and, somehow, of the Spanish monarchy; see Ena Sanjuán, âThe Vertebrae of the Leviathanâ, esp. 163â208.
The passes that were regulated were Braslavilla, Laliena, Garatoverza, Peñamelera, Pueyarraso, Forcala and la loma de Celia.
â[â¦] á fin, y efecto de que asi se eviten pleytos, y diferencias entre dichas partes y se viva con la paz, y quietud de qe Dios Ntro Sor mas se sirveâ; AMA, 256/8.
AMA, protocolos notariales 67, fols. 103râ109r.
AMA, 205/9. This consulta could not be dated. It has been described here because there is a date post quem (1615) and apparently there had not yet been an aprehensión of Estibiella and Tortiella.
AMA, 223/16 and 205/22.
They were a priest of the church of Ansó, a friar of the Convent of San Francisco of Jaca, and two monks of the Real Monasterio de San Juan de la Peña, one of them being Domingo La Ripa, a famous historian from Hecho.
AMA, protocolos notariales 84, fols. 51vâ54r.
AMA, 219/16. Curiously, the councillors of Hecho and Ansó rewarded the arbiters with bearskins.
This would be a key issue in the decline and collapse of the Crown of Aragon and the Spanish monarchy and the emergence of the Spanish modern state. Both Ansó and Hecho signed concordias with their respective creditors in the 18th century to reschedule their debts; they can be found in AHPZ, J/2088 and J/2089.
AHPZ, J/11177/1.
La Ripa y Marraco, Ilustración, 1â184.
AHPZ, J/766/20.
â[â¦] y siempre es medio mas proporcionado el terminar las diferencias entre Lugares circunvezinos por sentencia arbitral que se concluie con mas brebedad, que los procesos que traen consigo la dilacion que experimentamos en todas las causasâ.
AMA, 223/11.
This follows the lines proposed in Herzog, Frontiers of possession.
Baró Pazos, âLos lÃmites territorialesâ. The author makes a clear difference between the revision of the milestones that marked the jurisdictional boundaries of every municipality and the demarcation of pastures. In the case of Ansó and Hecho, the mojonaciones were mixed, as the limits of some pastures were the limits of the jurisdiction of the valley councils too.
A historiographical synthesis on the issue of demarcations can be found in André, âIntroducciónâ. Again, I must thank de Freitas Macedo for the reference.
AMA, 223bis/21.
Suman, Apuntes para el diccionario geográfico, 172, 278. Similar vistas were celebrated with the neighbouring valley of Roncal in Navarre. The representatives of both valley councils met regularly in the chapel of Puyeta, at the borderline between the valleys, and settled their differences.
AMA, protocolos notariales, 70, fols. 56vâ57v; 115, fols. 75râ76r, 110, fols. 142vâ143v; 121, fols. 71vâ72v; 124, fols. 15, 59; 125, fols. 59râ65v, fol. 57; 126, fol. 14v.
AMA, 136, municipal records, 15âV-1746 session.
The attorney was Francisco Javier La Ripa, a descendant of one of the monks who acted as an arbiter in the sentencia arbitral of 1665. He became a judge of the Audiencia himself almost two decades later and wrote the book on the foral trials of Aragon cited in this chapter. It is not clear why the actors involved could not solve their differences without having to resort to an external court.
AHPZ, J/11177/1.
AHPZ, J/10808/1 and J/2020. Hypothetically, there would have been a generalised collapse of the medieval-born instruments and practices in the mid-18th century, which would have been resolved through new practices that constituted the embryo of the modern state. It is also possible that the increasing litigation is a biased perception due to the partial destruction of the funds of the foral Real Audiencia in the Sieges of Saragossa, during the Peninsular War.
AMA, 228/4.
â[â¦] con objeto de avistarse en cumplimiento de lo estipulado en sus respectivas concordias dándose en el acto lectura de las mismas por sus respectivos secretariosâ; in AMA, 228/4.
Bibliography
Manuscripts
Archivo Histórico Provincial de Zaragoza (AHPZ)
C/MPGD/120.
J/766/20.
J/2088.
J/2089.
J/10808/1.
J/2020.
J/11177/1.
Archivo Municipal de Ansó (AMA)
136, municipal records, 15âV-1746 session.
205,
/9.
/22.
216,
/16.
219,
/6.
/16.
223,
/4.
/5.
/6.
/11.
/13.
/16.
223bis,
/19.
/20.
/21.
/36.
/41.
228,
/4.
256,
/8.
/9.
protocolos notariales,
67, fols. 103 râ109 r.
70, fols. 56 vâ57 v.
84, fols. 51 vâ54 r.
110, fols. 142 vâ143 v.
115, fols. 75 râ76 r.
121, fols. 71 vâ72 v.
124, fols. 15, 59.
125, fols. 59 râ65 v, f. 57.
126, fol. 14 v.
Printed Sources
La Ripa y Marraco, Francisco Xavier. Ilustración a los quatro Processos Forales de Aragón. Zaragoza 1764, Imprenta de Francisco Moreno.
Suman, Mateo. Apuntes para el Diccionario geográfico del Reino de Aragón: Partido de Cinco Villas: según el Ms. 9â5723 de la RAH ed. Salvo Salanova, Josefina and Ãlvaro Capalvo, Zaragoza 1802.
Literature
Agüero, Alejandro, âLas categorÃas básicas de la cultura jurisdiccionalâ, in Llorente Sariñena, Marta (ed.), De justicia de jueces a justicia de leyes. Hacia la España de 1870, 2007, 21â58.
André, Sylvain, âIntroducción. Breve balance historiográfico sobre apeos y amojonamientos: entre Edad Media y Ãpoca Modernaâ, in Magallanica. Revista de historia moderna8, 16 (2022), 242â254.
Baró Pazos, Juan, âLos lÃmites territoriales en el derecho histórico. Su fijación en la legislación y en la jurisprudenciaâ, in Anuario de Historia del Derecho Español 75 (2005), 413â444.
Bastias Saavedra, Manuel, âThe Normativity of Possession. Rethinking Land Relations in Early-Modern Spanish America, ca. 1500â1800â, in Colonial Latin American Review 29, 2 (2020), 223â238.
Benton, Lauren A., and Richard Jeffrey Ross (eds.), Legal pluralism and empires, 1500â1850. New York 2013.
Calvo Eito, Constancio (ed.), Valle de Hecho. Estudio antropológico y etnológico: etapas, desde 1755, el clero en el valle, desde 1842, censo de población, desde 1861, censo ganadero, desde 1870, censo escolar. Historia, costumbres, tradiciones y desarrollo de la vida diaria, vivida y contada por sus propios vecinos, Zaragoza 2016.
Cardim, Pedro, Tamar Herzog, José Javier Ruiz Ibáñez, and Gaetano Sabatini (eds.), Polycentric Monarchies. How Did Early Modern Spain and Portugal Achieve and Maintain a Global Hegemony?, Eastbourne 2012.
Cavaillès, Henri, âUne fédération pyrénéenne sous lâancien régimeâ, in Revue Historique 105 (1910), 1â34.
Congost, Rosa, âLa âgran obraâ de la propiedad. Los motivos de un debateâ, in Congost, Rosa and José Miguel Lana Berasain (eds.), Campos cerrados, debates abiertos. Análisis histórico y propiedad de la tierra en Europa (siglos XVIâXIX), Pamplona 2007, 21â52.
De Moor, Tine, Miguel Laborda Pemán, José Miguel Lana Berasain, René Van Weeren, and Angus Winchester, âRuling the Commons. Introducing a new methodology for the analysis of historical commonsâ, in International Journal of the Commons 10, 2 (2016), 529â588.
Duve, Thomas, âWhat Is Global Legal History?â, in Comparative Legal History 8: 2 (2020): 73â115.
Ena Sanjuán, Ãñigo, The Vertebrae of the Leviathan. Municipal Debt and State Formation in the Eighteenth-Century Crown of Aragon (PhD thesis), Florence 2022.
Fernández Otal, José Antonio, La Casa de Ganaderos de Zaragoza. Derecho y trashumancia a fines del siglo XV, Zaragoza 1993.
Fillat Estaqué, Federico, Ricardo GarcÃa González, Daniel Gómez, and Ramón Reiné (eds.), Pastos del Pirineo, Madrid 2008.
Gómez de Valenzuela, Manuel, Documentos sobre ganaderÃa altoaragonesa y pirenaica (siglos XV y XVI), Zaragoza 2007.
GorrÃa Ipas, Antonio Jesús, El Pirineo como espacio frontera, Zaragoza 1995.
GorrÃa Ipas, Antonio Jesús, Las relaciones transfronterizas en los Pirineos. una aproximación a su historia, Zaragoza 2023.
Grossi, Paolo, El orden jurÃdico medieval, Madrid 1996.
Grossi, Paolo, Un altro modo di possedere: lâemersione di forme alternative di proprietà alle coscienza giuridica postunitaria, Milano 1977.
Herzog, Tamar, Frontiers of possession. Spain and Portugal in Europe and the Americas, Cambridge, Massachusetts 2015.
Hespanha, António Manuel, As vésperas do Leviathan. Instituçoes e poder polÃtico. Portugal. Séc. XVII, Rio de Mouro 1986.
Idoate, Florencio, La comunidad del Valle de Roncal, Pamplona 1977.
Lana Berasain, José Miguel, and Miguel Laborda Pemán, âEl anidamiento institucional y su dinámica histórica en comunidades rurales complejas: dos estudios de caso (Navarra, siglos XIVâXX)â, in Dubert, Isidro y Hortensio Sobrado (eds.), Os traballos da vida. Estudos sobre o mundo rural, séculos XVIâXIX, Santiago de Compostela 2022, 151â175.
Le Nail, Jean-François, âPrésentationâ, in Le Nail, Jean-François, Henry Cavaillès, Bernard Druène, Christian Desplat, Alfredo Floristán Samanes, Antonio Jesús GorrÃa Ipas, Annie Brives, François Baby, and Michel Papy (eds.), Lies et passeries dans les Pyrénées, Tarbes 1986, iiiâix.
Ostrom, Elinor, Governing the commons. the evolution of institutions for collective action, Cambridge, New York 1990.
Pallaruelo Campo, Severino, Pastores del Pirineo, Madrid 1988.
Pascua Echegaray, Esther, Señores del paisaje. ganaderÃa y recursos naturales en Aragón, siglos XIIIâXVII, Valencia 2012.
RazquÃn Lizarraga, MartÃn MarÃa, Eduardo Aranguren Ibáñez, Marc Taull Taull, José Antonio Fernández Otal, Vicente Ferrer Lorés, P. Gascouat, and Rosa MarÃa Canals Tresserras, âLas facerÃas internacionales en el Pirineo. Historia, actualidad y futuroâ, in Canals Tresserras, Rosa MarÃa, and Leticia San Emeterio (eds.), Nuevos retos de la ganaderÃa extensiva. Un agente de conservación en peligro de extinción, Pamplona 2012, 3â28.
Soulet, Jean-François, Les Pyrénées au XIXe siècle. Lâéveil dâune société civile, Bordeaux 2004.
Stern, David G., âThe Practical Turnâ, in Turner, Stephen P. and Paul Andrew Roth (eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of the social sciences, Malden 2003, 185â206.
Tomás Faci, Guillermo, and Jorge Laliena López, Ansó. historia de un valle pirenaico, Huesca 2016.
Vaccaro, Ismael, and Oriol Beltran (eds.), Social and ecological history of the Pyrenees. State, market, and landscape, Walnut Creek 2010.
Yannakakis, Yanna, Since time immemorial. Native custom and law in colonial Mexico, Durham 2023.