0% found this document useful (0 votes)
228 views31 pagesHacienda and Plantation in Yucatan / Strickon, Arnold
Se delinean regiones de vasto ambiente en Yucatán, y se examinan las adaptaciones culturales ecológicas que ocurrieron en estas regiones en el período de la post conquista.
Fuente: América indígena 1965 25(1)
Uploaded by
maria ines sgrazzuttiCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
228 views31 pagesHacienda and Plantation in Yucatan / Strickon, Arnold
Se delinean regiones de vasto ambiente en Yucatán, y se examinan las adaptaciones culturales ecológicas que ocurrieron en estas regiones en el período de la post conquista.
Fuente: América indígena 1965 25(1)
Uploaded by
maria ines sgrazzuttiCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 31
America
|
Indigena ORGANO TRIMESTRAL DEL
INSTITUTO INDIGENISTA INTERAMERICANO
Director: MIGUEL LEGN-PORTILLA
Secretario: DEMETRIO SODI M.
Subsecretario: ALFREDO LOPEZ AUSTIN
| MEXICO, D. F., ENERO, 1965 |
SUMARIO
EDITORIAL
‘Ieferme acerca de las actividades del Instituto Indigenista
7 Interamericano, 1959-1964 .
‘Report on the activities of the Inter-American Indian Tnstitute,
(1959-1964 .
ARTICULOS
La Accion Tntegral y el Desarrollo de la Comunidad, por Anibal
Seoda and Plantation in Yucatan. An Historical- Ecological
Consideration of the Folk-Urban Continuum in Yucatan,
i Amold Strickon ..
‘The Influence of Strand Plain Morphology on the Developm:
‘of Primitive Industries along the Costa de Nayarit, Mexico
(Second Part) by James R. Moriarty ....
> de Antropologia Aplicada entre los Nahuas de la Sierra
de Pucbla, por Julio César Espinola
Es Danza Yaqui del Venado en la Cultura Mexicana, por
Edward H. Spicer
RESENAS BIBLIOGRAFICAS
Década de Congresos Internacionales de Americanistas.
1952-1962, por Juan Comas (Claudio Esteva-Fabregat) .
Reverso de la Conquista. Relaciones Aztecas, Mayas e Incas,
per Miguel Le6n-Portilla (Alfredo Lépez Austin)
ia —— de los Mayas, por Demetrio Sodi (Moisés Romero HACIENDA AND PLANTATION
IN YUCATAN
An Historical-Ecological Consideration of the Folk-Urban
Continuum in Yucatan *
by ArNoup SrricKoN
SUMARIO
Dentro del armarén de la historia y Ia ecologia, el autor
ha reexaminado en este articulo la distribucién de tipos de |
comunidad en Yucatan, tal como fueron descritos por Robert
Redfield y asociados, ‘principalmente en el libro The Folk
Culture of Yucatan (Redfield, 1941), en el cual se presenta
un estudio comparativo de cuatro comunidades yucatecas y su
distribucién en relacién a las diferentes exposiciones de las
comunidades mayas agricolas a Jas influencias “‘urbanas”.
Hace notar el autor que vista bajo esta perspectiva histérica
¥ ecolégica, la distribucién espacial de las comunidades, tal
como fue vista por Redfield en ese tiempo, constituyé ‘sélo
un momento de la adaptacién en movimiento de Ia cultura |
yucateca, tanto en sus aspectos mayas como euro-mexicanos,
@ Ia continua y cambiante demanda del sistema de hacienda; a
su ver este sistema enlazaba a Yucatin con la economia na-
cional ¢ internacional.
La metodologia de este trabajo es bastante diferente de la
que siguié Redficld en el suyo: en este articulo, no obstan-
te que el autor se interesa por una vision histérica de la
cultura yucateca, no le da importancia a Ja historia de las
comunidades en particular, estudiadas por Redfield, Villa 4
Rojas y Hansen. Aqui se delinean regiones de vasto ambiente
en Yucatan, y se examinan las adaptaciones culturales ecold. J
gicas que ocurrieron en estas regiones en el periodo de Ia
post-conquista. En la primera parte presenta un breve resumen
del ambiente en Yucatin, procede luego a discutir Ia épaca
de Jas encomiendas, las haciendas ganaderas, las plantacio-
nes de anicar y la Guerra de Castas, las plantaciones de
henequén y el surgimienta de Ja distribucién de culturas xe-
portada por Redfield.
A las relaciones entre as comunidades yucatecas rurales y
las urbanas se interpone algo mas que la distancia el rela-
tivo aislamiento: cada una de esas comunidades juega un
papel especializado dentro de un sistema circundante mis
grande, en el cual todas participan. Los cambios en las comu-
nidades yucatecas no ocurrieron en serie sino coordinada-
mente, en cuanto se ajustaban y se ajustan continuamente a
os requerimientos del sistema circundante, y las posibilidades
ecolégicas que sus habitantes particulares ofrecen a las nece-
sidades de este sistema.
American
This is an expanded version of a paper read before the
BeSepelecical Association Convention, November 1962. For their critical
Seeeeats on this paper at various times in the course of its preparation I
weet Ske to thank Charles Wagley and Robert Manners. The responsibility
See what appears here, of course, is my own,
Seetrica Indigena—Vol. XXV, N° 1.—Enero, 1965. América Indigena
Introduction
rter of a century ago Robert Redfield published The
Almost a quar
f four Yucatecan
Folk Culture of Yucatan, a comparative study o}
communitics (Redfield 1941). In this book, and in a number of other
books and articles which preceded and followed it (Redfield 1984
1947; 1950; Redfield and Villa Rojas 1934) Redfield stepped over
hreshhold around which the anthropol | profession had been
e for some years. The work of Redfield and his associates in
+r from the first study of so called “peasant” cultures.
It was, however, the most influential pioneering attempt to construct a
body of anthropological concepts specifically to deal with cultures
which were part of modern, complex, social systems. This, of course,
is not meant to imply that the ideas expressed by Redfield were com-
pletely original with him. Redfield himself expressed the intellectual
debt he owed to Park, Durkheim, and Wirth.
Redfield’s concepts, the folk society as a type, and the folk-urban
continuum as a framework for the comparative study of “the little
community” in complex systems, triggered a series of discussions
(ie, Redfield 1947; Miner 1952; Foster 1953; Mintz 1953). These
discussions ultimately led to the replacement of Redfield’s original
concepts (or, perhaps, refinement of them) by more sophisticated
typological categories and analytical frameworks.
‘The folk-urban construct was originally applied to order the data
collected by Redfield, Hansen, and Villa Rojas on the distribution of
cultures, or more accurately, the distribution of community types,
on the peninsula of Yucatan. It sought to explain this distribution in
a agricultural communities to
terms of differential exposure of May
“urban” influences.
The present article is also concern
munity types on the peninsula of Yucatan, Tt seeks to explain this
distribution, however, in terms of the changing adaptations of various
types of rural communities to a number of specific habitats and cultu-
ral-ecological niches. These cultural-ecological niches of Yucatan were
part of a larger encompassing socio-economic system. This system, in
changing over time. I believe that by considering these
changing local adaptations as well as shifts in the total system it will
faterials presented by Redfield with
be possible to integrate the m:
aspects of Yucatecan culture with which he did not concern himself.
Tt was widely recognized, as soon as The Folk Culture of Yucatan
appeared, that Redfield had all but ignored the henequen plantations
mi
Yucatan was fan
ed with the distribution of com-
turn, was itself Hacienda and Plantation in Yucatan
‘ef the northern part of the peninsula, In terms of the economic role of
‘he henequen industry for the whole peninsula, and in terms of the
prepertion of the Yucatecan population which was directly or indirec-
‘@y dependent upon it, this zone and these plantations constituted the
s=est important sector of the Yucatecan economy, society, and polity.
‘Ie my contention that the henequen estates of Redfield’s time were
‘SSitical to an understanding of Yucatecan culture as Redfield saw it.
‘The article goes a step beyond this, however. I shall argue that the
‘whole development of Yucatecan culture ever since the contact period
‘Bes been tied to the agricultural estate in one of its typological guises,
‘Net only is modern Merida inseparable from the plantation, but so are
Destas, Chan Kom, and even the most “isolated” of Redfield’s com-
@anities, Tusik.
‘This paper deals with Yucatecan culture and community types
Setorically and ecologically. By drawing upon concepts deriving from
‘Se analysis of plantation systems elsewhere in the world, it attempts
® evaluate the plantation’s role in the development of Yucatecan
Sslture up to that point in time and in reference to those places
where Redfield described it. By focusing upon the plantation this
_ @eticle deals with variables and events which were ignored or lightly
‘Gesed over in Redfield’s description and analysis of a generation ago.
‘Seme considerations on Redfield’s work
Redfield’s analysis was not primarily historical, as this one is to a
Taree degree. Redfield (1941: 341-342) stated that:
In none of the communities studied was any systematic ef-
fort made to recover the older conditions of the local society
by asking informants... On the whole the investigation of the
course of historic change in any one community by consultation
of either document or informant has been casual and unsys-
tematic.
But Redfield was concerned with change. Such a concern obviously
‘Ged to be based upon some degree of temporal depth. If such tem-
geal depth was not to be obtained by direct historical materials
“written or verbal) then it had to be indirect. Redfield’s “historical”
seethod was comparative and diffusionist. It translated space into
‘See and differences between communities into history (Redfield
‘$841: 341; 1934: 61). It is a method with a legitimate and honorable
‘plsce in American anthropology. It produces a time perspective for América Indigena
cultures upon which there is available little, if any, direct historical
materials, Social anthropologists in the nineteen-thirties were still
most comfortable in dealing with cultures of this kind
Redfield (1941: 339-340) in his comparison of Merida, Dzitas,
Chan Kom, and Tusik, found that:
To the degree to which investigators obtained information
as to earlier custom in the communities they studied, there
appears a certain rough overlapping of the course of history
of each, so that, if their accounts are superimposed on one
another at the points where the past condition of one com-
munity coincides with the present condition of the next most
isolated community, there results a single historical account,
although a very rough one of culture change in Yucatan. Even
where confirmation is lacking as to the earlier presence in a
less peripheral community the different forms of custom and
institutions may be arranged in an order consistent with the
spatial order of the communities so as to suggest an actual
historical sequence.
This is, admitted Redfield (1941: 341), “certainly a crude way to
derive even the most tentative historical conclusions.”
On the basis of this quasi-historical method, though, Redfield
propesed that in the course of Yucatecan history increasing contact
between the city (Merida) and the outlying communities permitted
the introduction of alternative patterns of behavior to the ones tradi-
tionally characteristic of the small communities. The closer the com~
munity was to the source of change in the city the more of these “city
ways” it would adopt. As this process continued a community would
become more like the city and less similar to the further removed
communities which still retained a greater proportion of “folk-like”
characteristics. The distribution of the four communities considered
ky Redfield certainly seemed to fit this “historical’’ model (Redfield
1947: 295ff, 298; 1941: 11, 369).
The folk-urban continuum concept exists on two levels. The first
(and much the more important in terms of the history of anthropo-
logical theory) is as a synchronic, typological, and comparative con-
cept specific to no particular culture. The second level on which it
exists is as an historical model specific to Yucatan. It is the folk-
urban-continuum-as-historical-model that is my concern in this article. Hacienda and Plantation in Yucatan
‘The diffusion of “Euro-Mexican” culture from urban to rural
‘emmunities was not a simple mechanical process in Redfield’s eyes.
‘He pointed out that (Redfield 1941; 359) :
It seems impossible to report the situation in Yucatan sim-
ply in terms of different degrees of diffusion of elements of
culture. Account has also to be taken of the consistency of the
total situation with the new element of culture that is presented
by example.
Unfortunately Redfield never dealt with the determinants of the
“wotal situation” other than those within the specific communities.
Ik is the total situation for the peninsula as a whole which is my
eoncern here.
Methodology of this work
The methodology of this paper is quite different from that fol-
tewed by Redfield. This article depends upon direct historical data.
While I am concerned with an historical view of Yucatecan culture
T am not concerned with the history of the particular communities
studied by Redfield, Villa Rojas, and Hansen. Rather I shall delineate
broad enyironmental regions in Yucatan and examine the changing
ealtural ecological adaptations made in these regions in the Post-
Conquest period. The four communities studied by Redfield and
‘is associates are viewed against this historical and ecological matrix
® representing samples of specific kinds of adaptations.
In the development of Yucatecan culture the agricultural estate
played a crucial economic, social. and political role. In the earlier
periods of Yucatecan history it was devoted to cattle, later to sugar,
aed later still to henequen. Each of these stages, and the two major
changes in crop, were. critical to the evolution of Yucatecan com-
‘ssunity types up to the moment that Redfield saw them in the nineteen-
‘thirties. It is this moment in time which is the bench mark of this
emalysis. Later developments in Yucatan are not considered.
The Maya agricultural village community itself played a rather
passive role in the massive changes experienced by Yucatan in its
‘ecst-conquest history. In periods and places where estate agriculture
ad no great labor demands the agricultural village was permitted
% <0 its own way as long as a minimum of goods, labor and ta-
‘ses were delivened to the superordinate groups. In those times and
places where the superordinate economic and political interests needed América Indigena
the reserves of land and labor to be found within the Maya com-
munities these resources were incorporated into the larger system and
the village community was displaced. At various times and places the
reverse also occurred, Estates surrendered both land and personnel
which were reconstituted as “traditional” Maya village communities.
Chan Kom is a result of this latter process. The driving force of this
interaction between estate and village came from the estate and not
the village
In discussing the state system in Yucatan I have chosen to follow
the terminology of Eric Wolf and Sidney Mintz (1957) and speak
about “haciendas” and “plantations”. The “hacienda” is the capital
extensive estate type where one of the primary concerns is to maintain
‘a subsistence base for owners and workers, and a solid base for the
tlevated status position of the owner, The “plantation” is the capital
intensive, often mechanized, estate which is corporately owned and
which has as its primary function the provision of profits on the invest-
ment of its stock holders. The distinction between these two types of
estate systems essentially parallels those made by Wagley and Harris
(1955) between engheno and usina plantation types, and by Steward
(1956) when he distinguishes between family and corporate plantation
types.
In its organization this article begins with a brief outline of the
environment of Yucatan. It then proceeds to discussions of the enco-
mienda period, the cattle hacienda, the sugar plantation and the War
of the Castes, the henequen plantation, and the emergence of the
distribution of cultures as reported by Redfield.
Habitat
Jutting out of southern Mexico and marking the southwestern
shore of the Gulf of Mexico is the peninsula of Yucatan, Politically
it was divided, at the time of Redfield’s study, into two states and one
territory of the Republic of Mexico. Until 1861, however, the peninsula
was a single political unit. In that year the state of Campeche was
carved out of the state of Yucatan. In 1902 the territory of Quintana
Roo was established. The total area of the peninsula is 53,289 square
miles (Shattuck 1933: 5).
"As in much of the rest of Mexico water is a strategic resource in
Yucatan, There are three major sources of it: 1) rainfall, which
comes chiefly from June to September. It is collected from the roofs
of houses and stored in cisterns or natural or artificial reservoirs Hacienda and Plantation in Yucatan 41
Known as aguadas; 2) artificial wells; 3) natural wells (cenotes)
which are formed on the collapse of the limestone surface into sub-
surface caves. Since most of the surface of Yucatan is limestone rain-
fall disappears rapidly through the highly porous rock. There are
few utilizable rivers and streams (Shattuck 1933: 9). The limited
‘umber and localized sources of water were a major tool for the
Spaniards in their control over the native Maya population.
Rainfall in Yucatan is marked by two gradients, one running
worth to south, the other west to east. The north-south gradient in-
exeases from between thirty and forty inches a year along the north
Shore to a high of about sixty-five inches a year along the southern
border with the Peten. The west-east gradient increases from 34.33
feches annually at Merida to 47.50 inches at Valladolid (Roys
1943: 9).
These two rainfall gradients, and the resulting differences in soils
fand vegetation (Casares 1905: 210; Regil 1852: 275) were critical
fm the historical development of Yucatan. They delimited areas which
sould come to be a climax area for one cash crop but a marginal
Grea for another, Rather than sorting themselves solely by area, how-
ever, major cash crops also followed each other in time, more or less
serially. The drier areas of the north and west were the center of the
first cash crop cattle. The replacement of livestock by sugar as
the major cash crop required the heavier rainfall and deeper soils
‘of the eastern and more central parts of the peninsula, Henequen, on
the other hand, which in its tum replaced sugar as the dominant
cash crop, once more shifted the agricultural center of gravity to the
more arid and thin-soiled areas of the north and west. The influences
upon the Maya communities of Yucatan can be understood in terms
of this regional shifting of estate agriculture and the varying demands of
production made by these export crops upon the Maya labor force.
‘At the time of Redfield’s study three major zones could be del-
aneated on the basis of rainfall, soils, natural cover, and agricultural
use. 1) The Northern Zone. This is an arid area of thin soils charac-
terized by a low scrub as its natural vegetation. The production of
hhenequen for export today centers in this zone and has centered here
ince the eighteen-sixties. Throughout the Colonial and Early Repu-
“this area was the center of the livestock
blican periods, however,
industry, 2) The Central-Eastern Zone. An area of moderate rainfall,
deeper but still thin soils, and tall forest cover. The chief agricultural
product in the nineteen-thirties was maize which served as both a
subsistence and cash crop for its producers. At various times in the América Indigena
past, however, this zone has been one of subsistence maize production
by Indians seeking refuge from Spanish or Mexican control, the climax
area of the Yucatecan sugar industry, and a peripheral area of pro-
duction of the henequen industry. 3) The South-Eastern Zone. A wet
area of deep soils and rain forest. The primary agricultural product
is maize which, at least up to the time of Villa’s study, was produced
for subsistence purposes only. Throughout the’ post-conquest history
of Yucatan this had been a refuge area and has never been directly
involved in agricultural production for export. At the time of Villa’s
study some chicle was collected for cash. More recently commercial
lumbering operations have begun in the area (Villa Rojas 1962).
This latter development, however, is beyond the concern of this paper.
The Encomienda Period
The roots of the estate system in Yucatan, as in most of the rest
of Latin America, lie in the encomienda system and in the economic
matrix of the Spanish conquest of Yucatan,
Although Spanish adventurers had discovered Yucatan early in
their explorations (1511) they also discoverd that Yucatan did not
have the wealth of the Valley of Mexico. Lacking minerals, the only
potential Yucatan presented was for agriculture and grazing (Cham-
berlain 1948: 3/f).
By the mid-sixteenth century the encomienda system had been
introduced and was thriving in Yucatan. Most of the encomiendas
were in the north and were devoted to stock grazing and agriculture.
The chief subsistence crop for both Maya and Spanish was maize.
Yucatecan soil and rainfall conditions provided a poor environment
for European grain crops. European crops such as turnips, citrus
fruits, sugar cane, etc. were, however, introduced and grown on a
small scale. The export “crop”, the source of cash, was livestock
which was sold in Cuban markets (Chamberlain 1948: 330-331).
The encomienda interests in Yucatan were extremely strong. In
the rest of Mexico fifty-five percent of the town were held in enco-
mienda but on the peninsula ninety percent of the towns were so
held (Scholes 1937: 4). The encomienda system lasted longer in
Yucatan, until 1785, than anywhere else in Mexico (Cline 1953: 99).
During the years following the Conquest the basic social categories
of the population emerged in Yucatan in a way paralleling that of the
rest of Latin America. It was a three category division (variously
described as class and/or caste, a distinction which need not concern Hacienda and Plantation in Yucatan
== here) which closely correlated with the division of labor within
he society. At the top were the Spanish and creoles who held the
‘eajor social, political, and economic roles in the society. ‘These people
|" wesided chiefly in Merida and Valladolid with occasional forays to
heir rural properties. Below these people were the mestizos who were
the soldiers, overseers, artisans, etc. They were to be found both in the
Sewns and in the countryside, At the bottom were the Indians who
sere the farmers and laborers, They were, for the most part, concen-
seated in the rural areas (Orosa Diaz 1945: 35; Chamberlain 1948:
240).
The Indians, for the most part, lived in their own villages which
secre separate from the Spanish and creole settlements. The Spanish
Sextitutions which administered these villages were distinct from those
“ebich administered Spanish, creole, and mestizo affairs, The direct
administration of the Maya villages, however, was in the hands of
‘Mayas confirmed by the Spanish in these roles, As long as minimum
conomic, political, and religious requirements set by the conquerors
secre met the villages were left to their own devices (Cline 1950b: 26:
Scholes 1937: 2; Chamberlain 1948: 339).
The degree of contrel of the Spanish and creoles over the Maya
sillages was not uniform over the entire peninsula. Effective control
seeakened as one moved south and east from Merida to Valladolid.
Valladolid marked the Spanish-Free Maya frontier. Beyond this
frontier were independent Maya villages which though similar to the
‘eees held in encomienda were free of the labor and tribute obligations
Seepesed by the Spanish on the northern Maya. From the mid-sixteenth
century the area south and east of Valladolid was a refuge area for
hese escaping from or avoiding Spanish (and later Yucatecan and
Mexican) rule. The border region between the refuge and Spanish
‘reas became a breeding ground for revolt whenever the territorial
eed structural status quo between the “Euro-Mexicans” and the Free
Maya was threatened (Villa Rojas 1945: 10-19; Cline 1945: 171).
In 1785 the encomienda period in Yucatan was brought to an
ed. The major institutions of that system, however, were carried
Serward in the cattle hacienda
‘The Cattle Hacienda
The maize and cattle producing family hacienda of Yucatén was
ef a type common throughout Latin America. As a type it has been 44 América Indigena
described in its structural features by Wagley and Harris (1955
Steward (1956), and Mintz and Wolf (1957).
Data are available for the numbers of haciendas only for the
relatively late date of 1838. By this period the numbers may have
included some estates devoted to sugar production and possibly envolv-
ing in the direction of the plantation as type. Keeping this caveat in
mind, however, it is clear that the area around Merida, with 446
haciendas, represented the climax of hacienda distribution, The district
of Immal in the central part of the peninsula had only slightly less
with 438. The eastern district around Valladolid had only 193, In the
interior, the district of Tekax (roughly south of an east-west line drawn
through Chichen-Itza), had an even smaller but unascertained number
of haciendas. The number of independent Indian communities was in
inverse proportion to the number of haciendas in the respective dis-
trict (Regil 1852: 253-255).
The production of cattle for export was the chief source of cash
for the Yucatecan hacendado. Beef and cattle products were marketed
in Cuba (Cline 1947: 50-51; Chamberlain 1948: 331). Maize was
also an important product of the hacienda system in Yucatan but not,
apparently, for export purposes. It was the chief source of subsistence
for all parts of the population, Indian and non-Indian alike (Cham-
berlain 1948: 330).
The cattle hacienda stressed self-sufficiency. Transportation was
poor and the seller could never be sure he could get his animals to
market (Camara 1936: 13). Commodity imports were limited by the
scarcity of cash and the same problem of transportation. Tt is charac-
teristic of this kind of estate system that imports were chiefly luxury
items for the owners and those things not produceable upon the estates
themselves (Cline 1950a: 68).
After the encomienda system was outlawed tenure by the hacen-
dados over the land they controlled underwent a legal change. Under
the old system the encomendero had direct control over the Maya
labor force and through them over the land they worked.
With the end of the encomienda system the hacendados tended to
purchase outright the core area (the planta) of the old encomienda
grant. Upon this core area stood the casa de hacienda and its attendant
outbuildings, barracks, shops, etc. (Cline 1950b: 107; Stephens 1841
Il: 402-403; Stephens 1868 I: 143 passim). The majority of the
productive land which the hacienda needed, milpa for its maize and
grazing land for its cattle, were usually state-owned public lands. Hacienda and Plantation in Yucatan
Seese lands were rented at very low cost and even the low rents were
‘eety sporadically collected (Cline 1950b: 391-396).
‘Throughout Mexico haciendas, like those of Yucatan, put a prem-
See on “self-sufficiency”. They attempted to include one or more
Salles within their control. This would not only provide an adequate
eed base for their operations but would include, as well, several
zones, the sources of one or more streams, and a diversity
“ef soil types (Whetten 1948: 99-100). In Yucatan, however, a variety
