ENCOMIENDAS,
MERCEDES,
AND
HACIENDAS
I N T H E TIERRA
C ALI Ε NT Ε
OF M I C H O A C Ä N *
By E l i n o r e M. B a r r e t t
Introduction
Changing patterns of land tenure have had profound effects on
the economy and society of Mexico, particularly in the Spanish colonial period. Studies such as those of Ζ a ν a 1 a 1 and Ο t s C a ρ d e q u i 2 have clarified the legal structure of colonial landholding.
Scholars such als C h e v a l i e r 3 have documented the process by
which the hacienda replaced the Indian landholding community as
the dominant form of land tenure. A recent study by T a y l o r 4 depicts a somewhat different history of land tenure in Oaxaca where Indians were more successful in retaining their lands. In the belief that
additional regional studies would contribute much to a further understanding of the evolution of land tenure in colonial Mexico, the pre* Abbreviations
AGI
= Archivo General de Indias, Sevilla. AGN
= Archivo General de la Naci0n, Mexico. ANM
= Archivo de los Notarios, Morelia, Michoacdn (Archivo de Tierras y Aguas de la Epoca Colonial). Documents are cited as
follows: 4-2-89, which is equivalent to Legajo 4, tomo 2, expediente 89. AS
= Documents of the Alcocer Sierra family, Morelia, Michoacin. DHMC
= Documentas para la Historia del Mexico Colonial. —
ENE
= Epistolario de Ntteva Espafia. PNE
= Papeles de Nueva Espafia. ROTMO
= Relacion de los Obispados de Tlazcala, Michoacan, Oaxaca . . . 1) Silvio Α. Ζ a ν a 1 a , De Encomiendas y Propiedad Territorial en Algunas Regiones de la Amirica Espaflola. Estudios Indianos, Edici^n de El Colegio Nacional, Mexico 1948, pp. 205-307.
Jos£ M. O t s C a p d e q u i , Esparia en Amirica. El Regimen de Tierras en
la £poca Colonial, Fondo de Cultura EcomSmica, Mexico 1959.
8) Franfois C h e v a l i e r , La Formaci6n de los Grandes Latifundios en Mexico, Tierra y Sociedad en los Siglos XVI y XVII. Problemas Agricolas e Industriales
de Mixico, vol. VIII, no. 1, Mexico 1956.
*) William B. T a y l o r , Landlord and Peasant in Colonial Oaxaca, Stanford
University Press, Stanford, California 1972.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
72
Elinore Μ. Barrett
sent study is offered 5. It is concerned with the Tepalcatepec Lowland,
the principal part of the tierra callente of Michoacan (see Map I).
The Tepalcatepec Lowland was a region tributary to the Tarascan
kingdom at the time of the Conquest, and it remained remote from
the principal centers of administration during the Spanish colonial
period. Encomiendas were assigned early but apparently did not lead
to the formation of landed estates. Permanent settlement and landholding by Spaniards may not have begun until after 1550 and did
not become significant until the early seventeenth century. Despite
declining Indian population that elsewhere in New Spain was accompanied by depressed economic conditions, the seventeenth century
seems to have been a time of expanding Spanish landholding and
formation of private latifundia in the Tepalcatepec Lowland.
Although the region was evangelized early, no important Church
institutions were maintained there, and the Church was not an important landowner. However, it did affect landholding through the
many liens it held on estates. Members of the native nobility, perhaps never powerful because of their pre-Conquest tributary status,
were eclipsed early in the Spanish colonial period and were not a
significant factor in the struggle over land. Hence the competition
for land in the Tepalcatepec Lowland was primarily between Indian
landholding communities and private entrepreneurs, most of whom
were Spaniards or mestizos. This paper is primarily concerned with
the acquisition and utilization of land by Spanish settlers and their
descendants in the colonial period.
Encomiendas
While encomienda grants did not give land to the Spanish conquerors, they gave encomenderos a preferred status that often led to
land acquisition. Encomiendas were the focus of early contacts between Spaniards and Indians, and the collection of tribute goods and
utilization of tribute labor gave Spaniards a knowledge of the resources of different regions that influenced the subsequent pattern of
settlement. In Michoacan encomienda grants were made in 1524.
5
) A more extensive study covering the period from the Conquest to 1970 is
found in: Elinore M. B a r r e t t , Land Tenure and Settlement in the Tepalcatepec
Lowland, Mexico, University Microfilms 71-20, 769, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Encomiendas,
mercedes,
and haciendas
in Midioacan
73
Cortes sent Antonio de Carvajal to survey Michoacan in the summer
of 1523, and upon his return to Mexico a year later the distribution
of encomiendas was made 6 . Although the surviving fragments of the
Carvajal visita do not include any towns in the Tepalcatepec Lowland, and none of the original encomienda documents have been
found, there is good evidence that the grants were made in 1524 in
that the Ortega visita of 1528 indicates that all cabeceras in the Lowland were then held in encomienda7 (see Table 1).
The encomenderos of the Tepalcatepec Lowland did not live in
the area, but they were active in the conquest and administration of
Michoacan and the neighboring provinces of Zacatula and Colima 8 .
Most of them were vecinos of the villas of Colima or Zacatula, the
only Spanish settlements in the extreme southwestern part of N e w
Spain (see Map I). Generally they relied on agents to look after the
collection of tribute. Several held prominent offices in Michoacin:
Avila, encomendero of Tepalcatepec, was sent as justicia to Michoacan and Zacatula and helped in the pacification of the Motin; Medina, encomendero of Tancitaro, was visitador of Michoacan; Pantoja, encomendero of La Huacana, accompanied Olid to Michoacan
in 1522 and later went to Colima and Zacatula, perhaps with Villa6) Fintan B. W a r r e n , The C a r v a j a l Visitation: First Spanish Survey of Michoacin. I n : The Americas (Washington), vol. 19, no. 4, April, 1963, p p . 4 0 6 , 408;
A G I , Justicia, leg(ajo) 130, f(olio) 1247 v.
7) A G I , Justicia, leg. 130, f f . 959 v - 9 7 3 . Of the five cabeceras involved, only
Tepalcatepec and A r i m a o were actually situated in the Lowland, but the largest
part of the jurisdiction of T a n c i t a r o was also located there as were smaller parts
of the jurisdictions of La H u a c a n a and Sinagua. The aboriginal cabecera of Arimao was removed to the site called P i n z i n d a r o early in the colonial period according to the relacion de Tancitaro, 1580. I n : Tlalocan (Mexico), vol. I l l , no. 3,
1952, pp. 225-226.
8) Information about the encomenderos
of the Tepalcatepec Lowland was obtained f r o m the following works in addition to the sources cited in Table 1: Baltasar D o r a n t e s d e C a r r a n z a , Sumaria Relacion de la cosas de la N u e v a
Espafia con Noticia Individual de los Descendientes Legitimos de los Conquistadores y Primeros Pobladores Espafioles, Mexico, 1902; - R O T M O , Luis G a r c i a
P i m e n t e l , ed., Mexico 1904; - Francisco A. de I c a z a , Diccionario A u t o biografico de Conquistadores y Pobladores de N u e v a Espafia, Madrid 1923; A. M i l i a r e s C a r l o and J. I. M a n t e c ö n , Indice y Extractos de los P r o t o colos del Archivo de N o t a r i a s de Mexico, D . F., vol. 1, El Colegio de Mexico,
Mexico 1945; - P N E , Francisco del P a s o y T r o n c o s o , ed., vol. 1, Suma de
Visitas, Madrid 1905; - D H M C , France V. S c h ο 1 e s and Eleanor Β. A d a m s ,
eds., vol. 1, Relaci<4n de las encomiendas de Indios hechas en N u e v a Espafia a los
conquistadores y pobladores de ella, 1564, Mexico 1955.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Elinore Μ. Barrett
74
TABLE
1
Encomenderos of the Tepalcatepec Lowland
Year
Tepalcatepec Arimao
1528
Alonso de
Avila
Hernando
de Argueta
Pedro
Sanchez
Farfin
Crown
1531
1540's
La Huacana Sinagua
Juan de Jaso Pedro Isla
Juan Pantoja Juan de la
Juan Jimenez Domingo de
Plaza
Medina
Crown
n. a.
Domingo de
Medina
Pedro Ruiz
Requena
Juan G0mez
de Herrera
Crown
Juan G<Smez
de Herrera
Crown
Francisco
de Herrera
1550's
Crown
1560's
Crown
1580
Crown
1597
Crown
Crown
1657
1697
X
Ο
Ο
Ο
n. a.
X
Ο
Taneitaro
Juan Pantoja Crown
Crown
Domingo de
Medina
Crown
Domingo de
Medina
Crown
Domingo de
Medina
Crown
Diego E. de
Medina
Crown
Diego E. de
Medina
X
Juan Pantoja Crown
Pedro
Pantoja
Crown
Crown
Pedro
Pantoja
Crown
X
Ο
Ο
Ο
N o information available.
Encomendero.
No encomendero.
Source:
1528:
1531:
1540's:
1550's:
1560's:
1580:
1597:
1657:
1697:
AGI, Justicia, vol. 130, folio» 959 verso - 973.
El Libro de las Tasaciones...
El Libro de las Tasaciones . . .
El Libro de las Tasaciones...
El Libro de las Tasaciones
Relation de Taneitaro
ENE, vol. XIII, no. 745.
AGN, Reales Cidulas Duplicadaj, vol. 41, folios 231-234.
AGN, Reales Cldulas Duplicadas, vol. 42, folios 562-592.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Encomiendas,
mercedes,
and haciendas
in Micfioacan
75
fuerte who led what was probably the first Spanish party to enter
the Tepalcatepec Lowland 9 . He was later corregidor of Michoacan.
Another facet of the encomenderos' activities is seen in the record
of their commercial activities. The encomienda was the principal asset of these men, and they looked upon it as a means of acquiring
the wealth they sought in coming to the New World. Acquisition of
precious metals was the chief form of wealth pursued and the main
reason that brought Spaniards into the tierra caliente where the Tarascan sources of gold and silver lay. As the mining areas of Zacatula, the Motin and Tamazula were located on the periphery of the
Tepalcatepec Lowland, the resources of the Lowland encomiendas
were in large part utilized to support Spanish mining operations in
those areas.
Tribute records of 1528 10 and 1531 1 1 indicate that nearly all of
the goods paid by the Tepalcatepec towns was in the form of food
and other supplies for the mines. Encomenderos either used these
goods for their own mining ventures or sold them to other Spaniards,
using their Indians to carry the supplies where they were needed. For
example, twice each year one hundred Indians from the district of
Tancitaro were required to carry supplies to mines fifteen leagues
away, presumably those of Tamazula 12 (see Map I). Use of Indian
tribute labor directly in the mines was forbidden1S, but encomenderos often ignored this prohibition. The encomendero of La Huacana,
Juan Pantoja, entered into a contract with Antonio Gutiirrez on
April 16, 1523 u:
.. por tiempo de dos anos, para coger oro, aportando ambos los indios y pueblos que tenian encomendados".
Besides Pantoja, other encomenderos of towns in the Lowland
were engaged in mining. In 1525 Juan Jin^nez encomendero of Arimao, was associated with Francisco Santa Cruz in exploiting mines
in Michoacdn, and in that year granted notarial power to Alonso
9 ) Carl O. S a u e r ,
Colima of New Spain in the Sixteenth Century, IberoAmericana: 29, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1948, p. 9-16.
10) AGI, Justicia, leg. 130, ff. 959 v-973.
H) El Libro de las Tasaciones de Pueblos de la NueYa Espafia, Siglo XVI, AGN,
Mexico 1952, pp. 343-344, 347.
12) Ibid., p. 344.
l s ) Josi M i r a n d a , El Tributo Indigena en la Nueva Espafia durante el Siglo
XVI, El Colegio de Mexico, Mexico 1952.
14) M i l i a r e s C a r l o and M a n t e c ö n , Indice y Extractos, vol.1, # 1246,
p. 271.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
76
Elinore Μ. Barrett
D£vila to sell his share of the slaves and equipment for whatever
price he could get 15 . Presumably the sale was made, but Jimenez did
not release the goods and chattels. Two years later Juan de Näjera
appointed an agent 16 : " . . . para reclamar de Juan Jimenez
...67
esclavos indios de su propiedad, que el ultimo nombrado tenia cogiendo oro en las minas de Micboacan, 'que se dizen de Sant Christoval,' con todas las bateas y herramientas, ast como con el oro que
hubiesen extraido."
Other encomenderos of the area, Juan de Jaso and Juan de la
Plaza were also involved in mining.
Stock raising was another important enterprise of encomenderos,
the animals often supplying meat, hides, or transport for mining operations. Swine were especially important 1 7 . The Indians of La Huacana were obliged to keep pigs for their encomendero18. Although
not as important as swine, sheep were introduced into the region at
an early date. In 1525 Pedro Sanchez Farfan, encomendero of Tepalcatepec, contracted with Francisco Gonzales for one year to care
for his sheep at a salary of ninety pesos of gold 19 . Cattle, likewise,
were introduced at this time but did not become important until
later.
In some parts of New Spain encomenderos exercised further influence in their areas by acquiring land to raise livestock or nonIndian crops such as wheat or sugar cane. By reason of their influential position encomenderos were able to obtain land by a variety of
legal and illegal means 20 . However, in the Tepalcatepec Lowland
there is no record of landholding by encomenderos. In 1568 Juan de
Medina was awarded a land grant in the vicinity of Apatzingan, but
whether he was related to the family of Domingo de Medina, enco15) Ibid., # 233, p. 78.
>8) Ibid., # 618, p. 158.
17) Josi M i r a n d a , La Funciön Econimica del Encomendero en Ios Origenes del Rigimen Colonial, Universidad Nacional Aut0noma de Mexico, Mexico
1965, p. 28; France V. Scholes, The Spanish Conqueror as a Businessman. In: New
Mexico Quarterly (Albuquerque), vol. XXVIII, no. 1, Spring 1958, p. 18.
18) El Libro de Las Tasaciones..., p. 187.
19) M i l i a r e s C a r l o and M a n t e c ^ n , Indice y Extractos, vol.1, # 161,
p. 63.
20) C h e ν a 1 i e r , La FormacUSn de los Grandes Latifundios, pp. 96-98;
Charles G i b s o n , The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule, a History of the Indians of
the Valley of Mexico, 1519-1810, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California
1964, p. 275.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Encomienda;,
mercedes, and haciendas in Michoacin
77
mendero of Tancitaro, can only be a matter of conjecture. The records are admittedly incomplete, but the fact that the encomenderos
lived elsewhere and were engaged in a variety of activities outside of
the region would give credence to this contention. Hence encomienda
did not serve as a basis for establishing private estates in the Tepalcatepec Lowland 21.
Only three encomenderos continued to hold their grants by 1550
(see Table 1). Of these Pantoja still held all of La Huacana, but G6mez de Herrera and Medina shared their towns, Arimao and Tancitaro, with the Crown. Hence with the number of encomenderos reduced, with encomienda no longer providing the right to tribute
labor 22 , and tribute goods gradually coming under Crown regulat i o n t h e role of the encomenderos declined after the 1550's. However, by then other Spaniards were moving into the area.
Spanish Settlement
It is possible to imagine that after the entradas of Villafuerte and
Carvajal, Indian contact with Spaniards in the few decades following 1523 was limited to agents of encomenderos and the Crown 24 .
Possibly a few Spaniards, hired by encomenderos to raise livestock,
lived for short periods near Indian villages. The establishment of
Franciscan and Augustinian convents in the adjacent tierra templada
brought a few visiting priests into the area by 1550. Records of land
grants begin in the 1560's, and although it is possible that a few Spaniards had taken up land earlier, the greater number of land grants
in the early seventeenth century provides some evidence that Spanish
21) A similar pattern has been noted for the area that now comprises the present
state of Morelos (see Michael G. R i l e y , Land in Spanish Enterprise: Colonial
Morelos, 1522-1547. In: The Americas (Washington), vol. 27, 1971, p. 249).
22) Silvio Α. Ζ a ν a 1 a , La Encomienda Indiana, Madrid 1935, pp. 115-117.
23) M i r a n d a , El Tributo Indigena, pp. 108-109, 138; D H M C , vol. 5 (Sobre
el modo de tributar los indios de Nueva Espana a su Majestad 1561-1564), Mexico
1958,p. 8.
21) In the 1530's local crown officials, corregidores de indios, were appointed to
the cabeceras of the Tepalcatepec Lowland: Tancitaro, including the jurisdiction
of Tepalcatepec, in 1531 (El Libro de las Tasaciones , . . , pp. 343, 347); Arimao and
Sinagua by 1533 (AGI, Indiferente General, leg. 1204, typescript courtesy of J. B.
Warren). See also Peter G e r h a r d , A Guide to the Historical Geography of
New Spain, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1972, pp. 74, 250.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
78
Elinore Μ. Barrett
settlement in the Tepalcatepec Lowland was sparse in the sixteenth
century.
By the 1570's there were about one thousand Spaniards in the Bishopric of Michoacan 25 , but they were mainly concentrated in the
cities of Valladolid (Morelia) and Patzcuaro, and the Spanish villas
to the north. The only Spanish settlements in the south continued to
be the villas of Zacatula and Colima 28 . The Relationes Geograficas
(1579-1581) indicate that there were still few Spaniards in the Tepalcatepec Lowland. A statement is made that there was about one
Spaniard for every one thousand Indian males 27 . As the number of
tributaries at that time may have been less than one thousand 28 , this
statement cannot be taken literally, but serves to emphasize the small
number of Spaniards even sixty years after the Conquest. The Relation de Tancitaro, referring to Apatzingan, further states that
there were few Spaniards because of the hot, unhealthy climate: "No
... es tierra habitable para espanoles..." 29. And in the jurisdiction
of Sinagua there were only a few Spaniards who were devoted to
raising livestock. 30
However, by 1620 this picture was changing, particularly in the
vicinity of Pinzandaro. Here there were two estanicas of Spaniards
numbering some fifty (whether persons or families is not stated),
and 81: " . . . se ban poblando a 3 y 4 leguas muchas haziendas de espanoles de cacao y palmasIn
1649 twelve Spanish families were reported in Pinzandaro, but in addition there were nine "haciendas de
cana dulce" as well as "haciendas de ganado mayor" and "huertas de
cacao" owned by Spaniards 82 . One gets the impression from maps
25) Wood row B o r a h , New Spain's Century of Depression, Ibero-Americana:
35, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1951, p. 11 (based on
L<5pez de Valasco, 1574).
26) Ibid., p. 9; AGI, Audiencia de Mexico, leg. 374 (1582).
27) Relaciön de Tancitaro, Arimao y Tepalcatepec (1580), Ignacio Bernal, ed.
In: Tlalocan (Mexico), vol. Ill, no. 3, 1952, p. 230.
28) Ibid., pp. 207, 222, 227. One half of the number of tributaries of Tancitaro
have been assigned to the Tepalcatepec Lowland.
29) Ibid., p. 220.
50) Archivo Histürico, Inst. Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico, leg.
102, DecrezkSn del Partido de Sinagua, 1581, f. 95 v(erso).
51) Biblioteca del Palacio, Madrid, ms. 2579, cat. no. 267, t(omo) II, Relaci<5n
del Obispado de Michoacin por Fray Baltasar de Covarrubias, 20 de Septiembre
de 1620, f. 23.
82) Newberry Library, Chicago, Ayer ms. 1106 A, Demarcaciön y descripci<Sn
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Encomiendas, mercedes, and haciendas in Midioacin
79
of the time that these owners lived on their properties (see Maps I I I ,
IV). Eventually a sufficient Spanish population must have built up
around Pinzandaro to warrant the founding of a villa.
The villa was probably established between 1649 and 1656
It is
stated that the pueblo and cabecera of "naturales' called Pinzandaro
was at the same time a villa of Spaniards called San Juan de Cuellar
de los Pinzanes 84 . This leaves some doubt as to whether the Spanish
villa was a separate entity with its own public buildings, houses, and
lands, but whatever its form, Pinzandaro seems to have been the
only officially recognized Spanish settlement in the Tepalcatepec
Lowland. However, this status persisted for little more than a century. Sometime between 1748 and 1760 it ceased to be a villa, the
reason being laid to depopulation resulting from epidemics 35 .
The census of 1742 listed about one hundred Spanish families in
the Tepalcatepec Lowland, while reports of 1789 indicated there were
less than fifty families 86 . Although it is impossible to know how
complete and, therefore, how comparable such figures are, it is possible that a decline in Spanish population had begun earlier in the
eighteenth century as a result of the depressed economy which seems
to have been chiefly related to scarcity of labor to work the estates.
Tributary population reached its nadir in the early decades of that
century and even though it was beginning to recover by the 1740's,
many properties remained semi-abandoned. The loss of villa status
by Pinzandaro was undoubtedly a reflection of this situation.
de el Obispado de Mechuacin y fundaci6n de su Iglesia Catedral, Valladolid,
25 de abril de 1649, f. 72.
SS) A list of villas in Michoacin in the Ayer ms. (ibid. f. 34) does not include
Pinzindaro, however a trapicbe license dated 1656 (AGN, Mercedes, vol. 51, f. 38
v(erso) and vol. 52, f. 17) describes its recipient as a vecino of Pinzindaro, which
may indicate villa status. A document of composition dated 1709 (ANM 6-2-78)
definitely refers to Pinzindaro as a villa.
« ) ANM 8-2-62.
85) Joseph Antonio de V i l l a s e i i o r y S ά π c h e ζ , El Theatro Americano
(1748), Mexico 1952, vol. 2, p. 91; ANM 8-2-64 (1760). The latter document
refers to Pinzindaro as a place "que antes fue villa".
36) V i l l a s e f i o r
y S i n c h e z . E l Theatro Americano, 1952, vol. 2, pp. 88
to 92; - Inspecci<5n Ocular en Michoacin, Regiones Central y Sudoeste, (1789),
Josi B r a v o U g a r t e , ed., Mexico 1960, pp. 116-141.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Elinors Μ. Barrett
80
TABLE
2
Mercedes Granted to Spaniards
in the Tepalcatepec Lowland
1567-1673
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Amount of Lan
sitio
Mayor Menor Cab
Date
Place
Grantee
1567
1567
1567
1567
1567
1568
1568
1568
1578
1578
1580»
1580*
1580*
1581
1584
1589
1592*
1592
1595
1598
1599
1599
1613
1614
1614
1614
1614
1615
1615
1615
1615
1615
1616
1616
1616
1617
1617*
1617
1617
Apatz.
Apatz.
Apatz.
Apatz.
Pinz.
Apatz.
Apatz.
Apatz.
Amatlin
Pinz.
Pinz.
Pinz.
Pinz.
Pinz.
Apatz.
Sinagua
Tepal.
Tepal.
Apatz.
Apatz.
AmatUn
Amatlin
Apatz.
Apatz.
Apatz.
Pinz.
Apatz.
Pinz.
Apatz.
Pinz.
Pinz.
Apatz.
Pinz.
Pinz.
Pinz.
Pinz.
Pinz.
Tepal.
Sinagua
Juan de Cueva
Francisco Löpez
?
?
Juan L0pez
Juan de Medina
Alonso Ochoa
Hernin Velisquez
?
?
?
?
?
?
Ant. Infante Samaniego
Pablo Mateo
Rodrigo Visquez
Pedro Valencia
Diego de Holanda
?
Alvaro Acevedo
Francisco Cases
Rodrigo Castro y Ba;an
Ana de Narviez
Gonzalo Antunez Ydnez
Gaspar de Porras Holguin
?
Francisco Martinez
Juan Rodriguez Cordero
Rodrigo L6pez de Rivera
Alonso Fernindez
Pedro Naranjo Barco
Mateo de Chivez
?
Gaspar Soli's y Marin
Francisco de Cervantes
Diego Felipe
Mariana de Zufiiga
J. Figueroa Campo Frio
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
4
1
2
1
1
4
2
4
2
1
6
4
6
2
2
4
2
3
3
0.5
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
* Date approximate
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Encomiendas, mercedes, and haciendas in Michoacin
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
1617
1626
1631
1631
1673
Apatz,
Apatz.
Pinz.
Pinz.
Apatz.
81
Francisco Diaz
Nicolis de Chivez
Pedro de Cueva y Carvajal
Pedro de Cueva y Carvajal
Los Chivez
Source: see note 37
TABLE
3
Licenses to Establish Trapiches
Tepalcatepec Lowland
1616-16)6
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Year
Place
Amount of Land
Cab. Hect.
Grantee
1616
1619
1622
1631
1633
1634
1640
1640
1641
1656
Pinzindaro
Pinzindaro
Apatzingin
Pinzindaro
Pinzindaro
Pinzindaro
Pinzindaro
Amatlin
Pinzindaro
Pinzindaro
3
8
4
3
4
3
2
2
?
2
129
344
172
129
172
129
86
86
86
Rodrigo L<5pez de Rivera
Francisco Martinez
Juan del Rio
Diego Felipe
Pedro de Cueva y Carvajal
Gaspar de Solis γ Marin
Diego Felipe
Catalina de Escobar
Ger0nimo de la Cimara
Fernando Ruiz de Saavedra
Source:
1. A G N , Mercedes, vol. 32, folio 254.
2. ANM, 3-1-20.
3. AGN, Tierras, vol. 3331, folio 1.
4. AGN, Mercedes, vol. 37, folio 186.
5. AGN, Mercedes, vol. 38, folio 2; vol. 39, folio 5.
6. AGN, Mercedes, vol. 39, folio 1 verso; vol. 39, folio 88 verso.
7. AGN, Mercedes, vol. 42, folio 4.
8. ANM, 7-1-8.
9. AGN, Mercedes, vol. 42, folio 36 verso.
10. AGN, Mercedes, vol. 51, folio 38 verso; vol. 52, folio 17.
87
Sources for mercedes listed in Table 2 are as follows:
23. Μ 28-68.
1. AS document. 12. AS document.
2. AS document. 13. AS document.
24. AS document.
3. AS document. 14. ANM 6-2-64. 25. Μ 29-115.
26. A N M 3-1-20.
4. AS document. 15. AS document.
5. 1M 9-229.
16. Μ 14-353 v.
27. AS document.
28. Μ 32-3.
6. AS document. 17. Μ 18-98.
18. Μ 19-10 v.
29. Μ 30-242.
7. AS document.
30. Μ 30-188 v.
8. AS document. 19. Μ 28-68.
20. AS document.
31. Μ 30-238 v.
9. ANM 7-1-8.
32. Μ 30-256.
10. ANM 6-2-64. 21. Μ 23-47 v.
33. Μ 32-127 ν.
11. AS document. 22. Μ 23-48.
IM 9-299 is equivalent to: AGN, Mercedes vol. 9, f. 299.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
AS document.
Μ 32-259.
Μ 31-378 v.
Μ 47-35.
Μ 31-376 ν.
ΑΝΜ 3-1-21.
Μ 33-125.
ΑΝΜ 6-2-64.
Μ 38-6.
ΑΝΜ 7-1-8.
Α Ν Μ 6-2-64.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
82
Elinore Μ. Barrett
Mercedes
Although there were few Spaniards in the Tepalcatepec Lowland
in the late sixteenth century, they did begin to make their mark,
largely by acquiring land. Given the Crown's policy of recognizing
and protecting Indian land rights, the kinds of land and means of
land acquisition available to Spaniards were limited. One of the principal means by which Spaniards obtained land during the sixteenth
and early seventeenth centuries was through the land grant, or
merced.
The earliest recorded land grant in the Tepalcatepec Lowland dates
from 1567, but as the existing record is incomplete, it is possible that
some grants were made earlier. Mercedes recorded during the period
up to 1590 were typically for grazing land and were not excessively
large-one sitio of ganado mayor (1,750 hectares) and perhaps
one or two caballerias of cultivable land {43 to 86 hectares) (see
Table 2). During this time a total of 31,500 hectares of grazing land
and 387 hectares of cropland were granted to Spaniards, but these
were located mainly in peripheral areas of the Lowland such as the
Llanos de Antunez which apparently had a sparse Indian population
(see numbers 1-16, Map II). Presumably these lands were considered
to be baldios, that is, unclaimed lands.
During the last decade of the sixteenth century and the first three
decades of the seventeenth century the pattern of land grants changed as more and larger cropland grants were made, some of which
were combined with one or two sitios of ganado mayor, but the
majority of which were not (see Table 2). Not surprisingly, all of
these purely cropland grants were located between the Rio Charapicho and Tomatlan, that is, in the spring zone where good soils and
abundant water prevail (see Map II). About half of these grants specifically included water rights. Pedro Naranjo, for example, was
granted the right to water from a spring in the vicinity of Apatzingan to irrigate the two caballerias granted him for a "buerta de
cacao"; however, he was cautioned to respect the rights of the Indians of Apatzingan who used water from the same source for their
fields and orchards (see Map III).
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Encomiendas,
mercedes,
and haciendas in Midioacan
83
Most of the cultivable land granted or otherwise acquired by Spaniards in the spring zone at this time was devoted to cacao or sugar
cane, although fruits such as bananas and coconuts are also mentioned. Cacao seems to have been the first commercial crop taken up by
Spaniards. Three mercedes granted in 1615 and 1617 specifically
mention that the land is for cacao, and Maps III and IV indicate that
other Spaniards had plantings of this crop. Between 1616 and 1656
at least nine Spaniards, many of them recipients of mercedes, obtained licenses to plant and process sugar cane (see Table 3). Cultivation
was heavily concentrated around Pinzandaro where diversion of
spring-fed streams provided a simple means of irrigation. Because
the Lowland has a hot, semi-arid climate, irrigation is necessary to
ensure good yields, hence the value of the spring zone where water
for irrigation is readily available throughout the year.
The procedure for acquiring a license to process sugar cane is illustrated by the case of Juan del Rio 38 . He had four caballertas of
land suitable for raising "cana dulce" near the Rio Charapicho, and
in 1621 applied to the audiencia in Mexico through the corregidor of
Apatzing£n for a license to establish a trapiche. The audiencia replied, directing the corregidor to put the matter to the Indians one
Sunday when they were all congregated at church to see if there was
any opposition to the proposed trapiche. A Spaniard who spoke Tarascan was appointed to do this, and the result was a series of statements by both Spaniards and Indians, in equal number, none of
whom raised any objection to the trapiche. This testimony was sent
to the audiencia along with a drawing of the lands involved (see
Map IV). On the basis of such evidence the license was probably
granted, the whole matter requiring more than a year to settle.
Mercedes were subject to a number of conditions designed to ensure settlement and development of the land by the recipient, and to
prevent it from falling into the hands of the Church 89 . For example,
in 1589 Pablo Mateo, applying for a merced of one sitio of ganado
mayor near the pueblo of Sinagua, promised to comply with the conditions of the grant. H e claimed to have 3,000 head of ganado mayor
and 2,000 head of ganado menor, far more than the minimum five
38) AGN, Tierras, vol. 3331, exp. 1.
TO) Recopilaci6n de Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias (1680), Madrid 1943,
vol. 2, libro IV, titulo XII, lejres i, ii, Iii, iv, x, xi, xiii, pp. 39-42.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
84
Elinore Μ. Barrett
hundred head of ganado mayor required 40 . He also promised not to
sell the land before four years and not to give or sell it to the Church
or an ecclesiastic; further, the corregidor confirmed that the merced
would not endanger the rights of the Indians. Mateo complained,
however, that others who had received mercedes sold their land without developing it before the end of the four-year period necessary to
obtain full title. That acquisition of a merced for the purpose of selling it was common in the Lowland is further underscored by the fact
that only a few of the recipients are mentioned in contemporary
documents as active in the area.
By the end of the sixteenth century licenses to sell were being issued with some grants 41 . The Chivez and Cervantes grants, made in
1616 and 1617 respectively, were accompanied by such licenses. Cervantes undoubtedly received the license because of his prominent
position. He held the rank of captain, and, according to his signature
on Map III, was also the notary (escribano) for the jurisdiction of
Tancitaro. He may also have been the great grandson of the conquistador Leonel de Cervantes 42. Chavez seems to have lived in the
Apatzingin area, but nothing more is known about him.
Prominent position not only played a role in determining who received licenses to sell mercedes, but who received the grants as well.
Gonzalo Antunez, who received a considerable grant in 1614, was
teniente corregidor of Tancitaro in 159248. Pedro de Cueva, who
was corregidor of Tancitaro in the same year 44 , or his descendant,
received two large grants in 1631. Rodrigo L0pez de Rivera, corregidor of Pinzandaro in 159945, received a sizeable grant of cultivable
land in 1615. Diego de Holanda, native of the province of Holland
and heir to a mayorazgo near the city of Harlem 4e , received a grant
sometime prior to 1598. Other grantees such as Gaspar de Porras
Holguin, royal notary, and Gaspar de Sol is, were related to conquistadores47.
40
) Lesley Byrd S i m p s o n , Exploitation of Land in Central Mexico in the
Sixteenth Century, Ibero-Americana: 36, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley and
Los Angeles 1952, p. 20.
4!) C h e ν a 1 i e r , La Formaci<5n de los Grandes Latifundios, p. 51.
42
) D o r a n t e s d e C a r r a n z a , Sumaria Relaci6n, p. 213.
48) AGN, Mercedes, vol. 18, f. 98.
« ) AGN, Mercedes, vol. 19, f. 10 v.
45) ANM, 4-2-89.
« ) Ibid.
47) D o r a n t e s d e C a r r a n z a , Sumaria Relaciön, pp. 174, 182.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Encomiendas, mercedes, and haciendas in Michoacin
85
The granting of land was not supposed to prejudice the Indians in
any way 48 . Not only was this stated in the grant, but regulations
such as those prescribing minimum distances between Spanish and
Indian lands were established49. Nevertheless, conflicts arose between Spaniards and Indians over the granting of mercedes. Only
three of the land grant documents for the Tepalcatepec Lowland record an objection by Indian communities, but opposition was probably more frequent, especially as Spaniards began to move into the
more densely settled spring zone. An example of this is seen in the
case of Juan Rodriguez Cordero, vecino of Pdtzcuaro 80 . On June
21, 1615, the corregidor of Tancitaro wrote the Viceroy about Cordero's request for a grant of four caballerias of land and water rights
near Apatzingan. The location of the desired land in relation to
those of the Indians and other Spaniards is shown on Map III.
The corregtdor reported that the Indians of Apatzingan, through
an interpreter "ladino en la lengtta castellana y tarasca", presented a
petition objecting to the merced on the grounds that it would partly
overlap lands of the grant of ganado menor they had requested, and
which they needed to supplement their income in order to meet tribute payments. The Indians complained that they would be constantly subject to damage claims because the proximity of the grants
would make it impossible to keep their stock out of Cordero's fields,
and also that two of the caballerias were too close to their own
fields. They further charged that, as the flow of the stream providing
irrigation water was barely sufficient for their plantings, Cordero's
grant would deprive them of needed water.
Cordero, in reply, stated that two of his caballerias were about
one half league from the Indians' fields and the other two slightly
more. If true, this would have been within the required limits. Apparently the Viceroy was satisfied because the grant was made September 19, of the same year 51 . However, the Viceroy must have
decided that there was enough land for all, and also granted the In48) Recopilaci0n de Leyes . . v o l . 2, libro IV, titulo XII, leyes v, vii, ix, xii,
χ vi, xvii, xviil, pp. 40-44.
49) C h e v a l i e r , La Formation de los Grande« Latifundios, pp. 155-156;
Mariano G a l v & n R i b e r a , Ordenanzas de Tierras y Aguas ο sea Formulario
Georaitrico-Judicial, Mexico 1842, pp. 87-91.
W) AGN, Tierras, vol. 79, exp. 9, 25 ff.
M) AGN, Mercedes, vol. 30, £. 242.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
86
Elinore Μ. Barrett
dians' petition for a sitio of ganado menor, as a statement in Cordero's merced noted that the lands granted him are near the sitio of
ganado menor of the Indians of Apatzingan. The Indians' merced
also appears on Map IV dated 1622. By then Cordero's lands seem to
have been acquired by Lorenzo P£rez, vecino of Pitzcuaro and resident of Apatzingan. A comparison of Maps III and IV shows the
increasing density of Spanish holdings along the Rio Charapicho.
With one exception, the period of land grants seems to have come
to an end in the 1630's, having reached a peak in the years 1613 to
1617. This roughly parallels the results of S i m p s o n ' s analysis
of mercedes granted in central Mexico as a whole 62 . He shows a
peak period between 1585 and 1595 and a sharp falling off after
1620. The lag of a decade or two in the Tepalcatepec Lowland may
reflect later settlement of this area by Spaniards. S i m p s o n attributes the decline in mercedes to depressed economic conditions; however, the expansion of landholdings and sugar cane cultivation do
not indicate a depressed economy in the Tepalcatepec Lowland at
this time. Rather, the decline in mercedes may have reflected a shift
in Crown policy from one of granting land in order to encourage
colonization to one of selling baldios in order to increase revenues
It may also have been related to a situation in which lands were more
easily obtained by other means, as much Indian land was abandoned
in the wake of epidemics.
During the sixty four years between 1567 and 1631 a recorded
62,449 hectares of land were granted in the Tepalcatepec Lowland
proper (excluding Sinagua), all but 3,139 hectares of which were
grazing land. Note 37 shows that evidence for the majority of land
grants comes not from actual grant documents, but from later documents of composicion which cite mercedes as proof of good title.
Assuming that these were not fabricated, and in some cases they are
mentioned in other documents as well, the record may be fairly complete.
Spaniards also acquired land through purchase from Indians (see
Table 4). The sale by Indians of Capirio put a large tract of hillyland south of the Rio Tepalcatepec into the hands of Spaniards, but
most of the purchases were concentrated in the area of irrigated lands
58) S i m p s o n , Exploitation of Land, pp. 8-10.
58) O t s C a p d e q u i , Espana en America, pp. 29-32.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Encomiendas, mcrcedes, and haciendas in Michoacin
87
around Pinzandaro and Apatzingan. The scanty record makes it
difficult to know the total amount of land sold by Indians, but it was
probably not more than a few hundred hectares. Hence total Spanish
landholdings by the end of the 1630's (excluding the Capirio lands)
were probably about 63,000 hectares, or about a quarter of the
250,000 hectares, of the Lowland proper. Thus it would seem that
Spaniards gained control of a substantial proportion of the Lowland
within a relatively short period of time.
There was an even higher proportion of Spanish holdings in the
spring zone between the Rio Charapicho and Tomatlan. Here mercedes numbered ten sitios of ganado mayor and fifty one caballerias
which, with purchased land, totalled about 20,000 hectares, or roughly one third of the area, most of which was cultivable land, some of
it irrigated. Competition for irrigated land was particularly intense,
as illustrated in the Cordero case. However, because of the drastic
TABLE
4
Recorded Purchases of Indian Community
Lands by Spaniards in the
Tepalcatepec Lowland
1592-16*7
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Date
Community
Amount of Land
Purchaser
1592
1633
Apatzingan
Pinzindaro
Pinzindaro
Pinzandaro
Capirio
Pinzdndaro
Pinzandaro
Pinzindaro
huerta
pedazo
1 caballeria
3 caballerias
Gonzalo Antunez
Ger6nimo de la Cimara
F. Patino de Herrera
Alonso Vaca Coronel
G. Magdalena I ^ v a n a
Lucas Beltrin
Catalina de Escobar
Ruiz de Saavedra
?
1635
1636
1651
1653
1657
2 caballerias
2 caballerias
6 caballerias
Described in 1719 as about 40 sitios of ganado mayor.
Source:
1. AS document.
2. A G N , Mercedes, vol. 39, folio 68.
3. AS document.
4. AS document.
5. AGN, Tierras, vol. 636, expediente 4, 162 if.; ANM 3-1-21.
6. AGN, Mercedes, vol. 49, folio 19.
7. A G N , Mercedes, vol. 49, folio 43 v.
8. ANM, 3-1-20.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
88
Elinore Μ. Barrett
decline in Indian population, there was not a general shortage of
land. The tributary population of the districts of Pinzandaro/Arimao and Apatzingan in 1531 was about 8,200 persons in an area of
62,000 hectares or seven and one half hectares per person M . In addition, these Indian communities possessed an unknown amount of
land south of the Rio Tepalcatepec. By the 1630's expansion of Spanish holdings had reduced land available to Indians in the spring
zone to 42,000 hectares, but the remaining Indian population of
about 1,000 persons then had forty two hectares each, excluding
lands south of the river
During the land grant period Spaniards engaged in many land
transactions and a few were able to build up sizeable estates. Diego
de Holanda, in addition to receiving a merced of one caballeria,
purchased other lands in the vicinity of Apatzingan, and when he
died in 1598 left a total of six sitios of ganado mayor and two and
one half caballerias (10,608 hectares) to his widow and son who
shortly thereafter sold their shares to the cura beneficiado of Tepalcatepec fiS.
Gonzales Antun ez Yafiez, a vecino of Patzcuaro, built up the
largest early estate in the Lowland 57 . By 1592 he purchased, with
approval of the authorities, a hmrta from the Indians of Apatzingan in which he planted cacao and coconuts (see Table 4). In 1614
he received a substantial merced of two sitios of ganado mayor and
four caballerias. Meanwhile he had purchased other lands, including
a number of mercedes. The merced lands shown on Map II in the
area from the Rio Cancita to the Rio Marquis constituted his
hacienda Cancita which was spread over the area that still bears his
name. By 1617 this estate consisted of twelve sitios of ganado mayor
and seventeen caballerias (21,731 hectares). Hence even in this early
period it can be seen that land monopolization by Spaniards was
M) Population estimate based on: El Libro de las T a s a c i o n e s . . p p . 343, 347; Tributos de los Indios de la Nueva Espana, 1536, France V. Scholes, ed. In: Boletin del AGN, vol. 7, no. 2, April-June, 1936, p. 199. Areas have been calculated
with the aid of a planimeter.
E5
) Population estimate based on: Biblioteca del Palacio, ms. (manuscrito or
manusript) 2579, cat(ilogo) no. 267, t. II, ff. 20, 23, 24; Newberry Library, Ayer
ms. 1106 A, ff. 71,72, 72 v.
56) ANM, 4-2-89; AGN, Mercedes, vol. 28, f. 68.
6?) AGN, Mercedes, vol. 29, f. 115; ANM, 6-2-24; AS documents.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Encomiendas, mercedes, and haciendas ίη Midioacin
89
significant. However, it was even more characteristic of the remaining decades of the seventheenth century as Spaniards continued to
increase their landholdings.
Haciendas
The seventeenth century saw the continued expansion of Spanish
landholding and the formation of many large estates, or haciendas.
The most important of these are listed in Table 5. Most had their
origin in mercedes, but after the 1630's the principal means of acquiring or expanding landholdings was composition. The door to use of
this method was opened in 1591 when the Crown issued two cedulas
TABLE
Major Landholdings
>
in the Tepalcatepec Lowland 1714
Size,
hectares
Owner
Hacienda
Fernando Vaca Coronel
30,997
Tangamacato
Chila
Cancita
Buenos Aires
San Antonio
Tiasca
172
7,043
21,559
172
129
1,922
Holanda lands
Charapicho
Chimanacuaro
San Vicente
10,608
3,736
1,750
7,172
Francisco Vaca Coronel
23,266
Mayorazgo Urrutia de V.
Bernabi de Armas
Joseph del Castillo
Phelipe Mier y Tres
Palacios
Colegio de la Compania
de Jesiis, Pitzcuaro
9,481
Concepciön
Gracia
Parandian
9,309
172
Rio de la Luna
Los Hoyos
Terrenate
1,836
430
Sinagua
4,059
2,266
21,000
70,000
Source: ANM 6-2-62, 7-1-8; AS documents.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
90
Elinore Μ. Barrett
declaring its right to all land for which there was no legal title 58 .
Land so held either had to be restored to the Crown or be made subject of a composicion. In the latter case the Crown would, upon
payment of a fee, grant legal title to land denounced as baldios or
confirm title to lands that had previously been acquired without formal title. Little was done to enforce these decrees until after another
cedula in 1631 declared that lands with faulty titles would be confiscated and sold at public auction unless the composition fee were
paid 5 9 . This was backed up by provision for "jueces de medida de
tierras y vistas de aguas" who were empowered to make regional
surveys of land titles 60 .
Various properties in the Tepalcatepec Lowland were the subject
of composition in 1641, 1674, 1697, 1714, and 1760. The 1714
composition was a general one for the region that resulted from a
survey made in December, 1713 61. The 1760 composition was undoubtedly a response to the real cedula of 1754 02. This decree provided clear title to all lands held before 1700 whether or not title
documents existed, provided such lands had been occupied and used.
This policy was based on the concept of prescription which recognized long-term possession and use of land as the basis of legal ownership. Lands acquired after 1700 were subject to composition and
confirmation.
A document in the notarial archive of Michoacan dated February
20, 1759, in Apatzingan, describes the controversies that arose over
the attempt to carry out the instructions of the 1754 real cedula in
the jurisdiction of Tancitaro 65 . The "comisario del juzgado privative de tierras y aguas" was charged with negligence in carrying out
the survey of lands and with demanding excessive fees for his work,
and the alcalde mayor was accused of favoritism in the case of his
brother who was owner of the largest estate in the Lowland at that
time.
58) Recopilaciön de Leyes . . v o l . 2, Libro IV, titulo XII, ley XIV, p. 42;
Wistano Luis O r o z c o , Legislaciin y Jurisprudent sobre Terrenos Baldios,
Mexico 1895, vol. 1, pp. 117-120.
59) Recopilaciön de Leyes . . . , vol. 2, Libro IV, titulo XII, ley XV, pp. 42-43.
60) C h e v a l i e r , La FormackSn de los Grandes Latifundios, p. 214.
61) ANM, 7-1-8.
e2
) See discussion in O t s C a p d e q u i , Espana en Amirica, pp. 102-126.
63) ANM, 7-1-11.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Encomiendas, mercedes, and haciendas in Michoacän
91
While Indians also used composition to confirm their land rights,
it was most important in enabling Spaniards to expand and consolidate landholdings, favoring the wealthy and politically powerful
who were, of course, able to obtain the most favorable composition
settlements. Perhaps the best approach to understanding the formation of latifundios in the Tepalcatepec Lowland would be to take up
the cases of the larger estates as listed in Table 5.
Fernando Vaca Coronel64
The early history of the Vaca Coronel family in the Tepalcatepec
Lowland is obscure. In 1525 a Juan Cornel was vecino and regidor
of the villa of Zacatula. Presumably this is the same person who came
to the New World with Cristobal Sotomayor, participated in various
conquests in the Spanish Main and New Spain, and who held in
encomienda a small town that paid its tribute in cacao. Whether he
was a forebearer of the Vaca Coronel family of the Tepalcatepec
area is, however, a matter of speculation. There appear to have been
two branches of the family: one succession passed through a series
of persons named Francisco Vaca Coronel, with the first record of
their acquisition of land in 1645; the second branch began with
Alonso Vaca Coronel, who first purchased land in the Lowland in
1635, and culminated in his son Fernando who built up the largest
latifundio in the area.
In a sale approved by the authorities in 1635 Alsonso Vaca Coronel paid 2,000 pesos to the Indians of Pinzandaro for three caballerias in a place called Tangamacato, a former sujeto of Arimao. He
also purchased at that time some adjacent land from Lie. Francisco
Patino de Herrera who had previously bought it from the Indians
{see Table 4). The resulting hacienda, San Francisco Tangamacato,
was planted to sugar cane (see Map V).
Sometime later Alonso acquired a second property, the estancia
Chila, which had its origin in three mercedes made about 1580 (see
numbers 11-13, Table 2). The recipients of the grants are not
«4) Based on: ANM, 3-1-20, 6-2-64, 7-1-8; AS documents; M i l i a r e s
C a r l o and M a n t e c < 5 n , Indice y Extractos, vol. 1, # 3241, p. 79; I c a z a ,
Diccionario Autobigrifico, vol. 1, # 121, p. 69.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
92
Elinore Μ. Barrett
named, but by 1626 these lands were in the hands of Juan Vivanco.
In a series of dealings during the ensuing six years they were purchased by Juan del Campo from Vivanco and his heirs and were subsequently acquired by Alonso Vaca Coronel.
Alonso obtained a composition for the trapiche Tangamacato in
1641 and again in 1674. In the latter year he paid 400 pesos, a high
fee which might indicate that this was a very productive property or
that he was claiming more than the four caballerias to which he
originally held title. In 1697 his son Fernando paid a composicion
fee of 100 pesos for the three sitios of Chila, using the occasion to
acquire an additional sitio of ganado mayor which he denounced as
baldios.
Fernando greatly increased his holding in 1700 by purchasing the
Antunez lands which consisted of the hacienda Cancita and the trapiche San Miguel de Buenos Aires (see Table 5, MapV). In 1710 he
added two smaller properties, the trapiche San Antonio (three caballerias) and the estancia Tiasca (one sitio and four caballerias). The
origin of San Antonio is uncertain, but probably resulted from a sale
made by the Indians of Pinzdndaro to Fernando Ruiz de Saavedra
in 1657 (see Table 4). Tiasca consisted of the mercedes granted to
Ana de Narvaez and Pedro Naranjo. A composicion fee of fifty
pesos was paid for both properties by Dona Maria Ana de Saavedra
in 1697, just three years before they were acquired by Fernando. The
composicion of 1714, when he claimed 30,997 hectares, probably
represented the peak of Fernando Vaca Coronel's holdings, the largest latifundio in the Lowland at that time.
Francisco Vaca Coronel85
By 1645 Francisco Vaca Coronel I was buying up the former holdings of Diego de Holanda as well as lands belonging to the heirs of
an early settler, Nicolas de Chivez, all in the vicinity of Apatzing£n. In 1706 his great grandson, Francisco Vaca Coronel III, added
to the family holdings by purchasing a part of the hacienda Charapicho which may have had its origin in the merced of Rodrigo Castro
65) Based on: ANM, 4-2-83, 4-2-89, 6-2-64, 6-2-78, 6-2-82, 1CM-92; AS
documents.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Encomiendas,
mcrcedes, and haciendas in Midioacan
93
y Ba^an. The owner of Charapicho in 1645, Juana de Mendoza, obtained a composition that year claiming that documents of title had
been lost when the hacienda burned sometime before.
Francisco III acquired the major part of Charapicho was well as
other land through his marriage to Juana Thoral de Mendoza. She
had inherited, in addition to part of Charapicho, the adjacent estancia Chimanacuaro and the hacienda San Vicente (see Map V). San
Vicente and Charapicho both produced sugar cane and livestock.
There is a suggestion that San Vicente might have formerly been part
of the holdings of Bernabi de Armas, an early settler. Chimanacuaro
was purchased by Juana de Mendoza from the estate of Ger<Snimo
de la C^mara in 1686. The latter was a vecino of Pinzandaro and
heir of an early settler of the same name.
When he obtained a composition for his lands in 1714, Francisco
III offered twenty-five pesos for the "huecos y baldios que hay
dentro del dichos linderos .. .*. Often the "huecos* and "baldios"
within the boundaries of a property were very extensive, and their
acquisition through composition was a means of greatly expanding
holdings for very little money. It is difficult to estimate the total size
of Francisco's holdings, but it may have reached 20,000 hectares.
T h e M a y o r a z g o of U r r u t i a d e V e r g a r a β β
The only properties in the Tepalcatepec Lowland that belonged to
an entailed estate were the haciendas Nuestra Senora de la Concepci6n (also called hacienda de la Nueva) and Nuestra Senora de Gracia (also called hacienda las Paredes) (see Map V). They were acquired in the 1650's by the mayorazgo of Urritia de Vergara 67 . The formation of Concepci6n began in 1614 when Francisco Martinez purchased for 150 pesos the merced of two caballerias made to Gaspar
de Porras Holguin. The following year Martinez himself was granted a merced of two sitios and six caballerias. In 1619 he bought for
66) B a S ed on: ANM, 3-1-20, 7 - 1 - 8 ; AS documents; A G N , Tierras, vol. 1440,
exp(edientc) 5; vol. 2717, exp. 15, 17 ff.; A G N , Bienes Nacionales, leg. 66, 10-11,
7-8, 4 - 5 ; A G N , Mercedes, vol. 49, f. 37.
67) Guillermo S. F e r n a n d e z d e R e c a s , Mayorazgos de la Nueva Espafia,
Biblioteca Nacional de Mexico, Inst. Bibliografico Mexicano, PublicacicSn no. 10,
Mexico 1965, pp. 41, 73-78, 157.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
94
Elinore Μ. Barrett
120 pesos one sitio of the Mateo de Chavez grant, and by this time
he had also received a license to establish a trapicbe. He died in 1622,
and the lands were purchased at auction by Gerönimo de la Cdmara
for 150 pesos.
De la Camara increased the size of the hacienda in 1633 through
the purchase of a piece of land from the Indians of Pinzindaro for
400 pesos. When he died in 1652, his widow sold the estate to the
mayorazgo for 490 pesos. The following year a composicion was
confirmed, and the mayorazgo paid a settlement fee of 800 pesos.
The hacienda was further enlarged in 1659 through the purchase of
three caballerias from Fernando Ruiz de Saavedra who had bought
them from the Indians of Pinzändaro for 900 pesos in a transaction
authorized by the Viceroy in 1657.
The hacienda Gracia had its origin in the authorized sale of land
by the Indians of Pinzdndaro. In 1651 they sold two caballerias to
Lucas Beltran for 110 pesos, and, in 1653, two caballerias to Catalina de Escobar for 200 pesos. In 1656 and 1657 Fernando Ruiz de
Saavedra bought both of these blocks of land, and it is assumed that
he sold them to the mayorazgo.
Both haciendas were still in the hands of the mayorazgo at the
time of the 1714 composicion. They were at that time rented by
Captain Joseph de Echevarria under a seven year contract for which
he paid 2,200 pesos per year including use of buildings, trapiche
equipment, and slaves.
B e r n a b e de A r m a s 6 8
Armas, a vecino of Pinzindaro, owned a number of properties in
the area at various times, but his principal holding seems to have
been the hacienda Parandian (see Map V). He obtained a composicion for it in 1675, basing his claim on the mercedes of Gaspar Solis
y Marin, Mateo de Chavez, and Francisco de Cervantes, all granted
in the years 1616 and 1617. He also acquired the trapiche license
granted to Soils in 1634. Precisely how and when Armas acquired
these lands is not known. The mercedes represented a total of two
M) Based on: ANM, 7-1-8; AGN, Mercedes, vol.5, f. 83 v; vol.31, f. 378 v;
vol. 31, f. 385; vol. 32, f. 127 v; vol. 32, f. 128 v; vol. 32, f. 259; vol. 39, f. 1 v; vol.
39, f. 88 v; AGN, Tierras, vol. 2776, exp. 37, 8 ff.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Encomiendas, mercedes,
and
haciendas
in Michoacan
95
sitios and ten caballerias, and it is likely that these and the three
caballerias that Solis purchased from Diego Felipe constituted the
hacienda Parandian. It was mainly planted to sugar cane, but the
former Cervantes land contained huertas of cacao.
J o s e p h del Castillo69
Castillo owned two haciendas, Rio de la Luna and Los Hoyos (see
Map V). The former consisted of one sitio of ganado mayor and two
caballerias that were originally granted as a merced in 1578. In 1640
they were owned by Catalina de Escobar who that year obtained
water rights and a license to found a trapiche. Los Hoyos had its
origin in two mercedes granted to Pedro de Cueva y Carvajal in
1631. He planted four of the ten caballerias to sugar cane and obtained a license to establish a trapiche in 1633. In 1696 a composition fee of thirty pesos was paid on all ten caballerias by an unnamed owner. Both Rio de la Luna and Los Hoyos were owned at
one time by the Campo family who also held a number of other properties. Castillo had acquired the haciendas by the time of the 1714
composition.
Phelipe Mier y Tres
Palacios70
The hacienda Terrenate and anexos Romera and Mesina was the
largest estate in the western end of the Lowland, consisting of twelve
sitios of ganado mayor and some cultivated land, part of which produced sugar cane (see MapV). The first evidence of Spanish ownership was a "escritura de venta" dated 1633. Neither the buyer nor
seller was named, but the former may possibly have been Gaspar
Solis y Marin, vecino of Tancitaro, who in 1633 was described as
the owner of six haciendas "de hacer azucar" in the jurisdiction of
Tepalcatepec. He paid a composition fee of 800 pesos for Terrenate
in 1644. In 1664 it was sold to Gaspar de Vald£z, and subsequently
passed through a number of hands until it was acquired, possibly
β») Based on: A N M , 6-2-70, 6-2-78, 7 - 1 - 8 ; AGN, Mercedes, vol.38,
vol. 38, f. 6; vol. 39, f. 5.
70) Based on: A N M , 6-2-57, 7-1-8, 9-3-72.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
f.2;
96
Elinore Μ. Barrett
about 1708, by Captain Phelipe de Mier y Tres Palacios who obtained a composition for it in 1716 for 150 pesos. Mier, like the owners
of the mayorazgo haciendas, lived in Mexico City and hired an administrator to look after his holdings. But aside from this most
hacendados seem to have lived in the area, although some of them
rented out at least part of their lands.
In contrast to the depressed economic conditions that characterized
many parts of New Spain during the seventeenth century 71 , this was
a period in the Tepalcatepec Lowland when Spanish population was
growing, a villa was founded, Spanish landholdings increased in size
and number, and crops such as sugar cane, cacao, and tropical fruits
were produced for sale outside of the area. Licenses to establish trapiches continued to be issued in the 1640's and 1650's (see Table 3),
and by mid-century there were in the vicinity of Pinzandaro alone
nine haciendas "de cana dulce en que se hace cantidad de azttcar y
tienen muchos esclavos..." 12.
"While sugar cane cultivation continued to expand during the latter
part of the century, cacao huertas declined 73 . The reasons for this
are difficult to discern, but may have been related to a diminishing
market for cacao as the Indian population continued to decrease. On
the other hand, the demand for sugar may have been rising as the
Spanish population in Michoacan increased. The reduced work force
for this laborintensive crop also probably contributed to the decline
of cacao. Cane growers, however, although forbidden to employ Indians in trapiches and ingeniös™, could afford to augment their
labor force with black slaves. The number of Negroes introduced into
the Lowland is not known, but they were sufficiently numerous to
have left a descendant population of pardos in places like Pinzindaro, Jalpa, and Tomatlin where many of the sugar cane haciendas
were concentrated 75 .
The foregoing discussion does not exhaust the list of Spanish landowners, but attempts to trace the formation of what seem to have
been the largest properties up to the time of the 1714 composition.
7I
) See B o r a h , New Spain's Century of Depression.
Newberry Library, Ay er ms. 1106 A, f. 72.
Ibid.
74
) Recopilaciön de Leyes . . . , vol. 2, Libro VI, titulo XII, leyes VIII, XI, pp.
301, 302.
?5) Inspecciön Ocular . . ., pp. 123, 125, 127.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Encomiendas,
mercedes,
a n d haciendas
in M i c h o a c a n
97
By that time some early latifundios had been swallowed up into yet
larger holdings, and few properties were still in the hands of their
original owners. Recores mention a score or more additional names of
smaller landowners who were also requesting composition or who
were mentioned as owners of adjoining properties. However, the
larger properties alone accounted for about 91,000 hectares (excluding Sinagua) or over one third of the Lowland, representing a substantial increase over the 63,000 hectares held in the 1630's.
L a n d and the C h u r c h
As a landowner, the Church did not play an important role in the
Tepalcatepec Lowland as it did elsewhere in New Spain. This may
have been so because no important convents were established in the
area, and because the convents that were founded there belonged to
the Franciscans, an order little concerned with acquiring properties.
Sometime between 1583 and 1620 small convents were established in
Apatzingan and Santa Ana Amatlan, each with a guardian and an
assistant78. Neither, however, led to the acquisition of landed property.
The one Church holding in the area, located on its southeastern
periphery, was the hacienda Sinagua (see Map V) 7 T . This vast livestock hacienda held by the Jesuits for one hundred and twenty years,
had its origin in a merced of one sitio of ganado mayor granted to
Joseph Figueroa de Campo Frio in 1617. In 1622 he donated it to
the colegio de la Compama de Jesus in Pitzcuaro, and although
this was contrary to royal decree, the title was confirmed. The property was greatly enlarged in 1636 when the cura beneficiado of La
Huacana, Lie. Gonzalo Magdaleno de Liivana, purchased the adjoining lands of the defunct Indian village of Capirio and donated them
to the Jesuit colegio 78.
7 8 ) Diego Μ u ή ο ζ , Descripciön de la Provincia de los Ap«Sstoles San Pedro
y San Pablo en las Indias de la Nueva Espana (1583), Archivo Ibero-Americano,
vol. X V I I I , Mexico 1922, pp. 389-390; - Biblioteca del Palacio, ms. 2579, cat.
η.» 267, t. II, f. 20.
7 7 ) Discussion of the hacienda Sinagua is based on; AGN, Tierras, vol.636, exp.
4; vol.1091, exp. 1; vol.1098, exp. 5; vol.1349, exp. 6; vol.2772, last document;
vol.2787, exp. 21; vol.2953, exp. 13; vol. ?962, exp. 105; ANM, 3 - 1 - 2 1 , 4 - 1 - 3 4 ,
4-2-93, 7-2-42, 7-2-43, 7-2-47.
7 8 ) A seventeenth century document concerning the Jesuit Colegio
in Pitzcuaro
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
98
Elinore Μ. Barrett
The Jesuits paid a composition fee of fifty pesos for the hacienda
in 1719, declaring that it contained about forty sitios of ganado
mayor (70,000 hectares). Its boundaries at that time were described
as follows: on the south, the Pacific Ocean; on the west, *las vertientes de Colimaon
the north, "hasta topar con el puesto Cttpuan": and on the east, the Rio Tepalcatepec below its junction
with the Rio Marques (see Map I). The most unrealistic boundary
was that of Colima on the west; in fact, the original description of
the Capirio lands gave the western boundary as the lands of the Indian village of San Gregorio Taciran. That no serious claims were
made west of there is indicated by the absence of litigation with such
owners as Fernando Vaca Coronel whose holdings would have been
affected.
The Jesuits sold the hacienda Sinagua in 1742. From then on it
was owned in succession by several families of Pdtzcuaro, and after
1774 became the object of intense litigation that dragged on into the
nineteenth century. An attempt was made in 1803 to sell it and divide the proceeds among the heirs, but so much of it had been denounced as baldios that it could command only a very low price.
This was a problem that former owners had faced as well, and indicates the difficulty of managing a remote, mountainous, and ill defined property where the principal use of the land was for stock
raising. In such a case collecting rent was difficult, if not impossible,
and this may have been one reason why the Jesuits had been willing
to sell it in the first place.
Elsewhere in the Tepalcatepec basin the Church did not own land,
but it did play an important role as a holder of liens on land 79 . One
kind of lien was an endowment in favor of a church or convent made
as a pious act or perhaps to provide for a son or daughter taking
orders. In such a case five per cent of the principal, usually the value
of a particular property, would be paid annually, but the principal
could not be claimed by the recipient. Nevertheless, the recipient
could intervene in the management of the property in order to ensure
states that Jesuits purchased the land; of the Indians of Capirio in 1636 (Boletfn
del A G N , vol. X, part 1, 1939, p. 89).
τβ
) The following discussion is based on: C h e v a l i e r , La Formaciön de
los Grandes Latifundios, pp. 201-206; O t s C a p d e q u i , E s p i n a en America,
pp. 42-49; Jean B o r d e and Mario G i n g o r a , Evoluciin de la Propiedad
Rural en el Valle del Puangue, Santiago 1956, p. 61.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Encomiendas,
mercedes, and haciendas in Midioacin
99
the income. Endowed masses (capellanias or chantries) were another
kind of lien whose payments provided income to a priest who was
charged with saying a certain number of masses each year as dictated
by the endower.
In addition to endowments, properties could be mortgaged, after a
fashion, by selling an annuity of five per cent of the value of a property in return for a given sum of money which was redeemable at
the discretion of the purchaser of the annuity. As the Church was the
main source of cash in the colonial period, many landowners needing
money sold annuities to the Church. Sudi an arrangement avoided
the prohibition against interest-bearing loans. If the principal were
recalled, the landowner could recover it by selling the annuity to another investor. Generally this was not necessary as the Church was
more interested in collecting the interest income than in recovering
the principal. If however, a landowner could not meet the payments
(rents or censos) the Church could take over the property and attempt to recoup the income by managing rental of the land itself or
by selling it at auction (remate).
The extent to which the Church held liens on land in the Tepalcatepee Lowland was revealed toward the end of the seventeenth century when falling income and inability to meet payments forced the
Church to take over encumbered estates. As early as 1664 Terrenate
was sold at auction by the Cathedral in Valladolid, and most of the
other major properties of the area went through this process in the
late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries as severely depressed
economic conditions overtook the area.
The Church generally prohibited the break-up of estates on which
it held liens
preferring to deal with a few large holdings rather
than many small ones. Hence estates that might otherwise have been
sold piecemeal were held together even though they were difficult to
manage on a profitable basis. The result was that such estates changed
hands frequently. Lured by the desire to enhance their status and
perhaps even their income through the acquisition of large estates at
low cost, many buyers found that they were no more successful than
their predecessors in raising income to meet the censos to say nothing
of profit to themselves. The Church would then reclaim the land and
sell it again.
80
) Fernando G o n z a l e s
cana, Mexico 1919, p. 69.
R o a . E l Aspecto Agrario de la Revoluci<5n Mexi-
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
100
Elinore Μ. Barrett
As the difference between the assessed value of the property and
the total amount of encumbrances was small, purchase of properties
at Church auctions provided a cheap but risky means of expanding
landhol dings 81 . A good example of this is seen in the case of Fernando Vaca Coronel who quadrupled the family holdings when he
purchased the former Antunez properties in 1700 from the Cathedral
in Vallodolid. Liens on these properties were mainly endowments. In
1617 Gonzalo Antunez established a capellanta in the amount of
2,500 pesos against the income from the hacienda Cancita for his son,
the Bachiller Felipe de Antunez. Later Felipe and his sisters established additional liens on the family holdings: in 1631, an andowment in
favor of the convent of Santa Caterina in Valladolid for 4,000 pesos;
and in 1660, another in favor of the cofradia de Nuestra Sefiora de
Rosario for 2,000 pesos.
When Felipe died in 1674 the Antunez holdings were auctioned off
by the Church, but several years later the ecclesiastic judge in Valladolid suspended this action and set up a concourse of creditors who
administered the properties until 1700 when they were sold at auction
to Fernando Vaca Coronel. Ten years later Fernando acquired San
Antonio and Tiasca in the same way. However, when he died, probably not long after the 1714 composicion, his holdings were, in their
turn, put up for auction by the Cathedral.
Depression and L i t i g a t i o n
Depressed economic conditions prevailed in the Tepalcatepec Lowland at the end of the seventeenth century. Diminished value of properties was indicated by the low composicion fees paid in 1697 and
1714; and inadequate income, by frequent mortgage foreclosure and
sale of properties at auction. In 1714 Fernando Vaca Coronel paid a
composicion fee of 100 pesos on his total holdings of 30,977 hectares, indicating extreme devaluation of his land compared with the
400 pesos fee paid on the trapiche Tangamacato alone in 1674. In
1716 only 150 pesos were paid for the composicion of Terrenate
which consisted of 21,000 hectares, whereas the fee had been 800
pesos in 1644.
81
) T a y l o r , Landlord and Peasant, p. 142.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Encomtendas,
mercedes, and haciendas in Michoacan
101
Mortgage foreclosure was widespread. The activities of Fernando
Vaca Coronel in buying up such properties have already been described. Terrenate, was resold several times during the latter part of the
seventeenth century. By 1709 Los Hoyos was in the hands of the
Jesuits, who had taken over its administration when its owners had
defaulted on their payments. In 1714 the hacienda Parandian was
described as "despoblada" and "embargada por la Santa Iglesia de
Valladolid
Composition surveys of 1709 and 1714 indicate that most private
properties as well as community lands were in varing states of abandonment 82:
. . hoy las pocas haciendas que han quedado con poco corriente son la
Hacienda Nucva del mayorazgo que fue de la Senoria Condesa de Orizaba,
y la hacienda grande del dicho mayorazgo, la hacienda del C a p i t i n D. Fernando Vaca Coronel Hamada Tangamacato que esti mantenicndo cortamente, !a Hacienda de Charapicho de D. Francisco Vaca ha dejado los
campos con cafia por no poder la bencficiar como asimismo la hacienda del
C a p i t i n D. Fernando Vaca Coronel el llanos de Antunez (Cancita) . .
This sorry state of affairs was attributed to 8 3 :
. . como asimismo la destrucckJn y asolaciön de la villa de P i n z i n d a r o
y sus moradores fue can grande que los grandes terremotos que han hecho,
no les dej6 cosa en pie, y lo penoso de la tierra y epidemias, continuadas
no dejaron persona viva en esta, y solo se mantienen tres indios . . . los que
han quedado los pueblos de Acahuato, Paracuaro, Jalpa, Tomatlin, San
Juan de los Pldtanos, y Apatzingin como 34 indios, y toda la demas
jurisdiciön sin gente. Y por lo fragoso y inhabitable y se han perdido de
censo y capellanias de todas las referidas haciendas m i s de 50,000 pesos . . . "
Natural disasters 84 and epidemics had reduced the population to
an all-time low. In 1697 there were 654 tributaries in the Lowland 88 ,
and the number decreased further if the above quotation can be believed. Presumably Negro slaves also died or fled the area. This
82) ANM, 6-2-78.
89) Ibid.
84) The Balsas Depression, of which the Tepalcatepec Lowland is a part, is one
of the most active seismic areas in Mexico (Federico Μ ο ο s e r and Manuel
M a l d o n a d o - K o e r d e l l , TecnSnica penecontemporanea a lo largo de la
costa mexicana del ociano Pacifico. In: Geofisica Internacionat, vol. 1, no. 1, Jan.,
1961, p. 18.).
85) A G N , Reales Cidulas Duplicadas, vol. 42, ff. 57, 57 v, 59 v. These data were
converted from tributaries to persons using the ratio of 1: 2.8 according to the
method of B o r a h and C o o k (Woodrow B o r a h and S. F. C o o k , The
Population of Central Mexico in 1548, Ibero-Americana: 43, Univ. of California
Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1960, p. 102).
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
102
Elinore Μ. Barrett
meant a greatly diminished labor force that sharply curtailed production on most haciendas to the point where many were in a state
of semi- or total abandonment. Under such conditions the losses on
censos and capellantas and subsequent foreclosure by the Church is
understandable.
These depressed conditions did not lead to the immediate disintegration of major haciendas largely because of the Church policy that
required sale of an estate en bloc. However, with the exception of
the entailed estate of Urrutia de Vergara, these large holdings eventually began to break up, and litigation over real property became
even more common than heretofore. The case of the Jesuit hacienda
Sinagua has already been described, and the other major holdings are
discussed below. It should be noted that by the 1740's the population
slowly began to recover and with it the economy. But even in the late
eighteenth century tributary population was low. Hence cultivation
of commercial crops was restricted by scarcity of labor to a few
favorable areas, mainly in the spring zone. Sugar cane continued to
be cultivated. Rice and indigo also became important hacienda crops.
But over most of the Lowland the raising of livestock, mainly cattle,
prevailed, supplemented by subsistence crops.
F e r n a n d o Vaca
Coronel88
The former holdings of Fernando Vaca Coronel were finally broken
up in the latter part of the eighteenth century. Following Fernando's
death, the Church auctioned them off several times until in 1749
they went to Coronel Andres Antonio de Castro, vecino as well as
regidor and alguacil mayor of Patzcuaro, who managed to hold
them until his death in 1767 when his widow sold them to Francisco
Vitorino de Tazo, vecino and merchant of Tangansicuaro in the
jurisdiction of Zamora. It was from this point that the vast holdings
built up by Fernando Vaca Coronel began to fall into the hands of
many different owners. There is some evidence that Tazo himself
sold some of the properties. For example, he sold Chila and its rancho
Acatldn to Jos£ Tadeo de Silva, vecino of Pitzcuaro for 20,000 pesos
8«) Based on: A G N , Tierras, vol. 1304, exp. 1; vol. 1305, exp. 1; A N M , 4-2-83,
6-2-82, 10-4-92; AS document.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Encomiendas,
mercedes,
and haciendas in Michoacan
103
in 1775. Other evidence comes from the build-up of extensive holdings in the post-Independence period by Antonio Sierra who acquired
many of the old Vaca Coronel lands from a number of different
families.
With regard to Chila, Silva had to assume obligations on it which
consisted of 11,000 pesos owing to the Cathedral in Valladolid and
9,000 pesos owing to the Dominican convent of Nuestra Senora de la
Salud in Patzcuaro, pledging to pay annual installments of 550
pesos. He paid off the 9,000 pesos, but after his death in 1787, the
estate could not keep up payments to the Cathedral. Hence Chila and
Acatlin were sold in 1790 at public auction to Francisco Alvarez,
vecino of Periban in the jurisdiction of Jiquilpan. At that time it
was claimed that these properties consisted of "JO sitios de ganado
mayor utiles" (52,500 hectares). But in 1697 Vaca Coronel had claimed only four sitios and one caballeria for Chila, and in 1745 Acatlan
was described as consisting of one sitio and one caballeria. According to a map made for the Sierra family in the early twentieth century, Chila and Acatlan consisted of about forty two sitios (73,500
hectares). As the earlier and later boundary descriptions appear to be
roughly the same, it would seem that either Vaca Coronel was vastly
understating his holding, or a great amount of accretion subsequently
took place.
Alvarez died not long after acquiring Chila and Acatlin and bequeathed these lands to his wife and minor children. It was from the
heirs of this family that Antonio Sierra purchased Chila in 1834. In
the interim their possession was not unperturbed. During the years
1790 to 1799 Alvarez, and then his widow, were involved in litigation with the mayorazgo over the boundary between Chila and the
hacienda Gracia, the case being finally settled in favor of the widow.
As for the other former Vaca Coronels lands - Cancita and adjoining properties east of Apatzingan; San Antonio, Tiasca, and
Buenos Aires west of Apatzingin - there is no continuous record,
but it seems certain that tazo was the last person to own all of them.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
104
Elinore Μ. Barrett
Francisco Vaca
Coronel87
By 1733 Francisco Vaca Coronel III had died, and his widow,
Juana Thoral de Mendoza, and their sons Pedro and Juan Felipe
continued in possession of the properties San Vicente and Chimanäcuaro. In 1733 Juana Thoral established capellamas on San Vicente
for 2,630 pesos and on Chimanacuaro for 500 pesos in favor of Juan
Felipe who was a presbyter of the Bishopric of Michoacan. With
Juan Felipe thus taken care of, the lands and their management were
left to Pedro. However, after Juana died in 1756 the sons disputed
the inheritance until they, too, died. Chimanacuaro was used for
raising cattle and horses and San Vicente was in a state of semiabandonment producing only small amounts of bananas, mameys and
other fruits.
The hacienda Charapicho seems to have passed out of the family's
hands earlier. In 1741 Matias de Chavez was described as owner.
It was not mentioned in subsequent documents, and at one point in
the litigation between Pedro and Juan Felipe the former mentioned
that Charapicho h a d belonged to his parents.
Pedro, vecino of Pinzändaro and also resident of Valladolid, had
a difficult time keeping Juan Felipe from taking over the management of the properties. This aggressive brother, besides his clerical
duties, also raised cattle and horses on lands rented from the Indians
of Tomatlan and worked a silver mine in the jurisdiction of Tepalcatepec. By 1772 both brothers had died, and the lands were being
claimed by Pedro's daughter, Maria Francisca de Vaca, but this was
disputed by other relatives. The matter was further complicated by
the fact that Juan Felipe had sold Chimanacuaro to Antonio Yanez.
Yafiez, a merchant and native of Apatzingan, had acquired considerable holdings by the time of his death in 1791. Besides Chimanacuaro, he bought the adjacent haciendas of Charapicho and Chiquihuitillo (see Map V) and, on the other side of the Rio Tepalcatepec, the lands of the extinct community of Huisto, formerly claimed
as cofradia lands by the pardos of Pinzandaro. H e valued Chiquihuitillo, which he rented out for rice cultivation, at 9,400 pesos.
Charapicho and Chimanacuaro were worth 16,000 pesos including
87) Based on: AGN, Tierras, vol.241, exp. 2, 208 ff.; ANM, 6-2-60; AS documents.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Encomiendas,
mercedes, and haciendas in Midioacan
105
livestock and equipment. Charapicho produced bananas and other
fruits as well as indigo, rice, horses and cattle. The Huisto lands,
which he acquired from a vecino of Patzcuaro, were used for raising
cattle. These lands were inherited by Yafiez* fourth wife who, by
1802, was engaged in litigation over them with her second husband.
This litigation brought out the fact that they also owned the haciendas La Labor and Cancita, which would have made them the largest
landowners in the Lowland at that time.
The heirs of Francisco Vaca Coronel, hence, ended up with only
the hacienda San Vicente. How long they held it is not certain. There
is a notice of its being rented out in 1832, but the owner is not
named.
Β er η a b έ de A r m a s 8 8
The hacienda Parandian, founded by Armas, eventually came into
the possession of Domingo Mendieta of Valladolid. Upon his death
in 1742, it was sold at auction by the Jesuit Colegio in Patzcuaro to
Blas de Campos and was in turn inherited by his widow and son. In
1763 it was again sold by the Jesuits, this time for 13,500 pesos to
Francisco Ladrön de Guevara, vecino and merchant of Apatzingin.
As late as 1801 his widow and children were still owners, although
disputing the inheritance among themselves. By that time it was
valued at 29,482 pesos and consisted of twenty one and one half
sitios of ganado mayor (37,625 hectares). This represents another
example of considerable increase - in this case from the original two
sitios and ten caballerias (3,930 hectares). This probably was accounted for by the annexation of properties south of the Rio Tepalcatepec, as the hacienda headquarters continued to be described as
consisting of two sitios (3,500 hectares).
The hacienda proper produced sugar cane products as well as
various fruits, and at least by the beginning of the nineteenth century
was also producing indigo. Abundant water was available from the
many springs at the base of the Cerro Parandian, and the ojo de
agua Parandian was long disputed with the community of Pinzandaro. Lands south of the Rio Tepalcatepec were used for raising
livestock.
88) Based o n : A G N , Tierras, vol. 885, exp. 1; vol. 806, exp. 1; vol. 1287, exp. 3;
A NM, 7-2-41, 8-2-64.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
106
Elinore Μ. Barrett
Phelipe Mier y Tres Palacios89
The hacienda Terrenate continued in the hands of the Mier y Tres
Palacios family. In 1757 Phelipe's son-in-law received confirmation
of a composition; a new one was not required because the lands had
been subject to composition earlier in 1716. During the latter part
of the century the family was embroiled in protracted litigation over
boundaries with Jos£ Alvarez who claimed the adjoining lands of
the defunct community of Alima as baldios. This led the owner of
Terrenate to apply for another composition in 1785 in order to affirm his rights. At that time the owner was Dr. Fernando de Cuesta
Mier y Tres Palacios, cura benefitiado of Yurirapundaro, jurisdiction
of Celaya. His administrator was Joseph Francisco de Cuesta y Rio,
vecino of Zamora and possibly a relative, although the records do not
make this clear. However, a few years later in 1788 the owner was
Manuel Francisco de Cuesta y Rio, "cura y )uez eclesiastico del partido de Tarecuato", jurisdiction of Jiquilpan, and his administrator
was Esteban de Cuesta y Rio who was owner by 1797, after Manuel's
death.
This series of owners, all presumably of the same family, engaged
in continuous litigation with Jos£ Alvarez, a vecino and merchant of
Tepalcatepec. Alvarez had denounced the lands of Alima, and apparently his claim was approved. However, he not only rented out
parts of these lands, but also others which he claimed as part of
Alima, but which were also claimed by the owner of Terrenate. The
latter apparently had acquired as baldios lands of the communities
of Romera and Tamasulapa (also called Mesina) which were wiped
out by epidemics at the same time as Alima, some time in the 1740's 90
(see MapV). At one point in 1797 when possession of the disputed
property was awarded to Cuesta, Alvarez broke up the ceremony of
possession with a group of armed men, declaring that the commission
deciding the matter was prejudiced in favor of Cuesta as one judge
was the latter's compadre. By 1805, when the record ends, the matter
was still not settled.
Despite the depression of the early part of the century, the high
rate of turnover of properties, and the incessant litigation, the
89) Based on: AGN, Tierras, vol. 1228, exp. 1; vol. 1229, exp. 1; vol. 1230, exp. 1;
vol. 1235, parts 1 and 2; ANM, 6 - 2 - 5 7 , 12-2-30.
90) AGN, Historia, vol. 72, exp. 1.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Encomicndas,
merccdes, and haciendas in Midioacin
107
amount of land held by Spaniards increased, and large holdings continued to dominate during the eighteenth century. Some fragmentation occurred, as in the cases of the two Vaca Coronel latifundios,
but commonly the policy of the Church and the social desirability of
large holdings worked to prevent break-up of estates. The entailed
estate of the Urrutia de Vergara family persisted. Increasingly landowners were merchants, officials, or churchmen who lived outside of
the Lowland and rented their land to others. Displacement of Indian
community lands by Spanish haciendas affected not only land tenure,
but led to a major change in land use as well. Some haciendas in the
spring zone continued the aboriginal pattern of raising tropical and
subtropical crops for export out of the Lowland, with indigenous
crops such as cotton and cacao being supplanted by sugar cane, indigo, bananas, and rice; but throughout most of the Lowland, the
crop agriculture of the Indians was replaced by extensive cattle raising.
The history of colonial land tenure in the Tepalcatepec Lowland is
similar in many ways to the general pattern described for central
Mexico, but the absence of landowning by encomenderos and the
Church represent significant points of divergence. Later Spanish
settlement, which did not become important until the early seventeenth century, and a more prolonged decline in Indian population,
which persisted until the early eighteenth century, were distinctive
features that affected the evolving pattern of land tenure in the Lowland. Indian landholding, while severely reduced had not disappeared
by the end of the colonial period. Eleven of the original twenty four
Indian villages still existed with some of their lands intact.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
108
Elinore Μ. Barrett^
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Encomiendas,
merced.es, and haciendas
in Michoacan
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
109
110
Elinore Μ. Barrett
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
Encomiendas,
mercedes,
and haciendas
in Michoacan
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM
111
112
Elinore Μ. Barrett
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 6:40 PM