Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T11:36:48.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Indian Congregations in the New Kingdom of Granada: Land Tenure Aspects, 1595–1850*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

Orlando Fals-Borda
Orlando Fals-Borda*
Affiliation:
Bogotá, Colombia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

IN their essays on the congregation of Indians in New Spain, Lesley Byrd Simpson and Howard F. Cline advanced information on the general characteristics and legal bases of this royal policy. Essentially, the kings of Spain wanted to gather the Indians into towns for purposes of religious training and in order to facilitate fiscal and political administration. According to Simpson and Cline, the application of these laws in New Spain toward the latter part of the sixteenth century was largely ineffective and, apparently, the congregation program affected only a small portion of the native population. One of the main reasons for this partial failure was the fact that the Indians already had villages, and it was very difficult for them to move to newly established locations. The documentation of these socio-political processes is avowedly incomplete; investigators have not gone beyond 1606 and have not examined the intrinsic land tenure implications. Except for a case history presented by Cline in 1955, other social aspects of this policy have hardly been studied.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , April 1957 , pp. 331 - 351
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This article was awarded second place in the James Alexander Robertson Memorial Prize 1955 Competition sponsored by the Latin American Conference of the American Historical Association, Washington, D. C.

Acknowledgment is made to the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation for a Fellowship that permitted the author to do sociological and historical research about his native Colombia, and to Professors T. Lynn Smith and Lyle N. McAIister of the University of Florida.

References

1 Simpson, Lesley Byrd, Studies in the Administration of the Indians in New Spain: The Civil Congregation [Ibero-Americana: 7] (Berkeley, 1934)Google Scholar; Cline, Howard F., “Civil Congregation of the Indians in New Spain, 1598–1606,” The Hispanic American Historical Review, XXIX (1949), 349–369.Google Scholar

2 Cline, p. 369. Cline, Howard F., “Civil Congregation of the Western Chinantec, New Spain, 1599–1603,” The Americas, XII (1955), 115–117.Google Scholar

3 The pertinent laws were issued by Charles V and Philip II from 1546 to 1578, and they are recapitulated in the Libro VI, Título III of the Recopilación de las Leyes de las Indias.

4 Supplementing details and related information can be obtained from the sources cited above as well as from the following: Rodríguez, Guillermo Hernández, De los Chibchas a la colonia y a la república (Bogotá, 1949), pp. 275–298 Google Scholar; Friede, Juan, El indio en lucha por la tierra (Bogotá, 1944)Google Scholar; Ots Capdequí, José María, El régimen de la tierro en la América española (Ciudad Trujillo, 1946), pp. 93–104 Google Scholar; and Fals-Borda, Orlando, Peasant Society in the Colombian Andes (Gainesville, Florida, 1955), pp. 89–106.Google Scholar

5 The Chibcha Indians did not live in villages but in scattered farmsteads, and they were not too prone to move into the new pueblos. However, these towns survived as religious and trade centers, while the bulk of the population remained scattered in the area. For a documented treatment of this subject see the writer’s “A Sociological Study of the Relationships Between Man and the Land in the Department of Boyacá, Colombia,” doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, 1955, pp. 71–78. Cf.Fals-Borda, Orlando, “Los orígenes del problema de la tierra en Chocontá, Colombia,” Boletín de historia y antigüedades (Bogotá), XLI (1954), 36–50.Google Scholar

6 For the present study, information was gathered from the seven volumes on “Resguardos de Boyacá “in the colonial section of the Archivo Nacional de Colombia in Bogotá, hereafter cited as ANC. Volumes and legajos were also consulted at the offices of notaries public at Tunja and Turmequé in the department of Boyacá.

7 Distinct from the Spanish grants, the Indian titles were given for collectivities rather than for individuals. In this it has been claimed that the colonial authorities were preserving the indigenous system of social organization. Communal ownership, however, does not necessarily go with primitive peoples. Studies of the Algonquins of Canada, the Tolowa of California, and the Veddas of Ceylon, among others, have disclosed that private ownership is possible in “non-civilized societies.” As for the Chibcha Indians who occupied the mountain area of Boyacá, it is suspected that they knew the principles of inheritance and private ownership, although no definitive study has been made on the subject. See Castellanos, Juan de, Historia del Nuevo Reino de Granada (Madrid, 1886), I, 38, 47, 190 Google Scholar; and Zerda, Liborio, El Dorado (Bogotá, 1948), pp. 142–144.Google Scholar

8 Cf. Ots Capdequí, pp. 69–71.

9 Groot, José Manuel, Historia eclesiástica y civil de Nueva Granada (Bogotá, 1889), I, 516–520.Google Scholar

10 ANC, V, ff. 311–321; Silva, José Mojica, ed., Relación de visitas coloniales (Tunja, 1948), pp. 202–203.Google Scholar

11 ANC, III, ff. 1–145. At the present time, Monquirá is a neighborhood (vereda) in Villa de Leiva.

12 Mojica, pp. 34–36. Iguaque is now a vereda in the municipio of Chiquiza.

13 For further details, see Fals-Borda, “A Sociological Study …,” pp. 87–91.

14 Andrés Berdugo y Oquendo to Viceroy Solís, Chiquinquirá, April 30, 1756, ANC, VI, ff. 902, 905.

15 Mojica, p. 227.

16 “Confirmación de los resguardos de Cucaita por Andrés Berdugo y Oquendo,” Cucaita, February 1, 1756, ANC, V, ff. 921, 928v.

17 Mojica, p. 72.

18 “Diligencias del resguardo de Turmequé de la Real Corona, Turmequé,” May 18, 1596, Archivo Nacional de Colombia, Sala Colonia, Resguardos de Cundinamarca (hereafter referred to as ANC, Cund.), I, ff. 9–18.

19 Mojica, p. 54. This town, now disappeared, was near Siachoque and Firavitoba.

20 Ibid., pp. 37, 54; “Los indios de Soaca contra su encomendero, 1647,” ANC, V, ff. 762–769. Soaca has also disappeared; it was located near Pesca.

21 Mojica, p. 39. It seems that this Moquechá is the old name of a vereda now, called Tobal, at Tota.

22 Ibid., p. 58. Bombaza was near Tota and Tuquecha.

23 Ibid., p. 60. Today, one of Tota’s veredas.

24 Ibid., pp. 42–43.

25 Ibid., p. 45.

26 “Auto del Licenciado Juan de Valcárcel, Sogamoso,” April 26, 1636, ANC, I, f. 204v.

27 Mojica, p. 41. Today, one of Paipa’s veredas.

28 Ibid., p. 38.

29 Ibid., p. 44.

30 Ibid., p. 45.

31 Ibid., pp. 46–106, 178; ANC, Cund., I, ff. llv-12. Some of these towns have disappeared and it is difficult to know where they were established. However, it can be gathered that, with the exception of Somondoco, these congregations were in the Soatá region in the northern section of Boyacá.

32 Mojica, p. 218.

33 Ibid., pp. 170–171.

34 Ibid., p. 173.

35 “Titulos del resguardo, Panqueba,” September 13, 1635, ANC, VI, f. 663v; Mojica, p. 179. The deed states: “Los dichos dos pueblos están juntos y poblados en este pueblo en contorno de la iglesia como se ordenó en la visita última pasada.”

36 Ibid., pp. 184–185.

37 “Diligencia de reconocimiento del resguardo de Betéitiva y Tutazá por José M. Campuzano, 1777,” ANC, V, f. 206; Mojica, p. 182.

38 Mojica, p. 186.

39 “Diligencias de ajuste del resguardo de Motavita por A. Berdugo y Oquendo,” December 16, 1755, ANC, III, ff. 665–668.

40 ANC, III, ff. 505–511.

41 ANC, VI, ff. 782–786.

42 “Confirmación del resguardo de Tibaná por A. Berdugo y Oquendo,” January 20, 1755, ANC, VI, f. 940. “

43 Mojica, p. 206.

44 “Confirmación de los resguardos de Boyacá por A. Berdugo y Oquendo,” January 23, 1755, ANC, V, f. 986v.

45 “Amparo del nuevo resguardo de Monguí por A. Berdugo y Oquendo, 1755,” ANC, III, ff. 770–824; Mojica, p. 197.

46 Mojica, p. 191. It seems that the Nemuza Indians were incorporated to Oicatá; Nemuza does not exist today.

47 “Asignación de las tierras del resguardo de Tuta por Juan de Valcárcel, Tuta,” July 12, 1636, ANC, VI, ff. 9–15; Mojica, pp. 192–194.

48 Mojica, p. 202. This is called Sutamarchán today, by adopting the name of the first encomenderos.

49 ANC, VI, f. 952v; cf. Mojica, p. 250.

50 ANC, III, ff. 997–1002.

51 Mojica, p. 208. These lands were located at Novillero, today a vereda in Moniquirá.

52 See Fals-Borda, “A Sociological Study …,” pp. 97–101.

53 Wages had been required as payment for labor when the Indians were declared subjects of the Crown in 1542. Regulations of this system were set forth in 1593 by Philip II, in 1598 by the Real Audiencia de Santa Fe de Bogotá, and again according to a royal cédula in 1601 (Groot, I, 202, 301–302, 524).

54 “Los indios de Soaca contra su encomendero Francisco Ramírez Melgarejo, 1647,” ANC, V, f. 776v. Unfortunately no other details are given, such as the number of Indians involved and their obligations. Cf. Mojica, p. 39, for Tuquecha and Moquechá (1596).

55 Transcribed by Hernández Rodríguez, pp. 265–266. See regulations for concertados at Somondoco, Tenza, Sutatenza, and Sunuba in 1621 by Antonio de Obando, in Mojica, p. 142.

56 See the Recopilación de las leyes de las Indias, Libro VI, Título III, Ley XII. Cf. José María Arboleda Llórente, El indio en la colonia (Bogotá, 1948), pp. 164–166.

57 Mojica, pp. 216–220.

58 ANC, I, ff. 780–811; III, ff. 148–148v; V, ff. 420–425, 532–538v.

59 Basilio Vicente de Oviedo, Cualidades y riquezas del Nuevo Reino de Granada (Bogotá, 1930), passim.

60 Posada, Eduardo and Ibáñez, Pedro María, eds., Relaciones de mando (Bogotá, 1910), passim.Google Scholar

61 Ots Capdequí, pp. 107–112.

62 Andrés Berdugo y Oquendo to Viceroy Solís, Soatá, May 25, 1755, ANC, IV, f. 7.

63 ANC, IV, ff. 9–9v.

64 Posada and Ibáñez, p. 149.

65 There are many cases in which such small operators settled on Spanish haciendas. For instance, during the 1770’s Diego de Caycedo had 23 vecinos as renters (arrendatarios) in his Teguaneque farm at Turmequé (“Memorial de Diego de Caycedo, Santa Fe de Bogotá,” October 14, 1777, ANC, VII, f. 78). Nicolas de Rutia had 53 vecinos as renters in his Toca estates in 1785 (“Padrón que se hizo este año de 1785 de las personas que hay en-esta agregación de Toca de confesión y comunión,” ANC, Cund., I, ff. 33–35).

66 There were illegal renters in most reservations, some with only one (Boyacá), others with a good number (Certinza). Bias de Valenzuela to the Viceroy, Santa Fe, December 24, 1777, ANC, V, ff. 82–83; “Confirmación del resguardo de Boyacá por A. Berdugo y Oquendo,” January 23, 1755, ANC, V, ff. 990–995.

67 Joseph Antonio de Peñalber to Viceroy Soils, Boavita, June 21, 1755, ANC, IV, f. 13.

68 Andrés Berdugo y Oquendo to Viceroy Solís, Toca, January 18, 1756, ANC, IV, f. 961v.

69 Mojica, p. 235.

70 Ramón C. Correa, Monografías (Tunja, 1928–1941), III, 123.

71 ANC, IV, ff. 30–33.

72 Andrés Berdugo y Oquendo to Viceroy Solís, Chiquinquirá, April 30, 1756, ANC, VI, ff. 905–911.

73 Mojica, pp. 243, 247.

74 Memorial of Clemente Robayo to the Viceroy, Santa Fe, March 22, 1782, ANC, I, ff. 293–295; Mojica, p. 239.

75 “Memorial de los oidores, Santa Fe,” July 15, 1755, ANC, IV, ff. 22–22v.

76 ANC, IV, ff. 298–457.

77 ANC, IV, ff. 705–761.

78 ANC, IV, ff. 869–1002; Mojica, p. 266.

79 “Diligencias del remate de los resguardos de Cerinza, Santa Fe,” June 25, 1777, ANC, V, ff. 54–56.

80 ANC, V, ff. 225–238.

81 ANC, VII, ff. 974–1006.

82 Mojica, p. 259. The first order to abolish the Sogamoso resguardo was issued in 1767 (ANC, I, ff. 166–167, 186, 202), but the Indians resisted the change. The final orders were given by Campuzano and Oidor Francisco Antonio Moreno y Escandón (ANC, VII, ff. 726–727).

83 ANC, VI, ff. 824–841.

84 Mojica, pp. 245–246.

85 Ibid., p. 250.

86 Ibid., pp. 250–265; ANC, III, f. 283.

87 Tomás de Guevara to Viceroy Caballero, July, 1781, ANC, VI, ff. 579–589.

88 Mojica, p. 244.

89 Ibid., p. 247.

90 ANC, V, f. 44v.; Mojica, p. 273.

91 In this regard see the monumental, though somewhat disorganized work of Correa, already cited. The legal wording was: “Se erige en parroquia, extinguiéndose su primitiva constitución de doctrina” (cf. “Memorial de los oidores, Santa Fe,” July 15, 1755, ANC, IV, f. 25v).

92 Clemente Robayo to the Viceroy, Santa Fe, March 22, 1782, ANC, I, ff. 293–295.

93 ANC, III, ff. 277–299.

94 Joseph Antonio de Peñalber to Viceroy Solís, Boavita, June 21, 1755, ANC, IV, ff. 13–76v.

95 ANC, V. ff. 54–112V.

96 ANC, V, ff. 238–240.

97 Tomás de Guevara to Viceroy Caballero, July, 1781, ANC, VI, ff. 580–581.

98 ANC, VI, ff. 850–860.

99 Mojica, p. 250.

100 ANC, VI, ff. 908–926.

101 ANC, VII, ff. 1001–1023.

102 ANC, VII, ff. 83–107V.

103 “Padrón que se hizo este año de 1785 de las personas que hay en esta agregación de Toca de confesión y comunión,” ANC, Cund., I, ff. 33–35.

104 “Memorial de los oidores, Santa Fe,” July 15, 1755, ANC, IV, ff. 22–22v.

105 The term “agregado “is used at the present time in Girón (Santander, Colombia) to refer to a tobacco sharecropper; see Roberto Pineda Giraldo, “Estudio de la zona tabacalera de Santander,” in Seguridad Social Campesina (Bogotá, 1955), p. 52. There are agregados in diverse areas of Colombia, but their distribution has not been documented. The Boyacá agregados are different from the Brazilian agregados who are resident laborers on fazendas; see T. Lynn Smith, Brazil: Peoples and Institutions (Baton Rouge, rev. ed., 1954), pp. 60, 383–387.

106 Mojica, p. 195.

107 ANC, III, f. 665; Mojica, p. 222.

108 Mojica, p. 204.

109 Oviedo, pp. 116–117.

110 “Padrón que se hizo este año de 1785 de las personas que hay en esta agregación de Toca de confesión y comunión,” ANC, VII, f. 33; “Interrogatorio por el cual serán examinados los testigos, Betéitiva,” May 25, 1777, ANC, V, f. 232v.

111 Oviedo, p. 117.

112 Such was ordered for the Sogamoso Indians upon their transfer to Paipa; see “Auto del Visitador Francisco Antonio Moreno y Escandón, Paipa,” June 8, 1778, ANC, VI, f. 726v. The same was ordered for those Indians at Soatá upon their transfer to Tequia and Boavita; see “Memorial de los oidores, Santa Fe,” July 15, 1755, ANC, IV, ff. 22–22v.

113 “Bruno y Agustín Acero, capitanes de los indios desagregados del pueblo de Betéitiva,” to the Viceroy, Santa Fe, July 12, 1779, ANC, V, ff. 269–270.

114 “Don Pedro de Bargas … por los capitanes e indios naturales del pueblo de Cerinza,” to the Viceroy, Santa Fe, August 19, 1784, ANC, V, f. 120.

115 Agustín Baldeón, Indian captain, to the Viceroy, Santa Fe, November 25, 1789, ANC, VI, f. 895v.

116 Fals-Borda, Peasant Society, pp. 66–67, 102–112 passim.

117 For a discussion of these terms and others, see Fals-Borda, “A Sociological Study …” pp. 133–151. Notably, today in many areas of Boyacá to be called “concertado “is considered an insult or somewhat degrading.

118 In Panqueba, an agregado is now a share renter. When Campuzano visited El Cocuy in 1777, he listed three parcialidades of Indians at Panqueba which belonged to the El Cocuy community, apparently agregados since the visit of Berdugo in 1755 (Mojica, pp. 249, 265). Orgóniga was a part of the resguardos of El Cocuy in 1806, when a priest requested its delivery in order to help with the construction of the church (ibid., p. 275). The share renters of this locality have preserved the term “agregado,” although the meaning and functional relationship of the term has changed from “those attached to El Cocuy “in 1755, to those left landless on their own plots and who pay rent in produce, after the priest’s probable purchase in 1806. The principle that governed this transition was similar to that one in Cerinza in 1784.

119 Don Pedro Mendinueta, Viceroy, to corregidor of Ráquira, Santa Fe, February 13, 1802, ANC, II, ff. 262–263, 269v.

120 ANC, VI, ff. 37–41, 675–685.

121 ANC, VI, ff. 686–699.

122 ANC, IV, ff. 641–688.

123 ANC, VI, ff. 797–797V.

124 Don Bisente Joya, governador del pueblo de Turmequé, to the Viceroy, Santa Fe, April 25, 1775, ANC, VII, f. 3. The whole proceedings for this transaction take up to folio 141 of the same volume.

125 Certificado a pedimento de Francisco Marino, San Antonio,” January 23, 1778, ANC, VII, f. 141. On the other hand, Oviedo believed that Turmequé had been little invaded by Spaniards (p. 118).

126 Posada, Eduardo, El 20 de julio (Bogotá, 1914), pp. 211–213, 353–356.Google Scholar

127 Cf. the work of Correa, already cited; cf. above, note 70.

128 The authority of the Colombian government to make such a decision rested upon the conviction that the State had subrogated from the Spanish Crown the eminent domain. This is contained in a decision by the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia dated April 7, 1897; see José María Serrano Zúñiga, Investigaciones jurídicas sobre baldíos (Manizales, 1936), p. 79.

129 Hernández Rodríguez, p. 286.

130 Ibid., p. 287.

131 For the size and number of the resulting lots, see Fals-Borda, “A Sociological Study …,” pp. 197–201. For details on the parcellation of one resguardo in Cundinamarca, see Fals-Borda, Feasant Society, pp. 97–109.

132 These dates represent the day on which the actual partition was completed in each locality, after the Indians had been given possession of their respective lots. The record for the Samacá reservation is in the Notaría Segunda de Tunja, legajo Samacá, ff. l-99v.

133 Notaría Segunda, leg. Tuta, ff. 1–98.

134 Notaría Municipal de Turmequé, leg. 1836, folios not continuously numbered.

135 Notaría Segunda, leg. Sotaquirá, folios not numbered.

136 Notaría Primera de Tunja, leg. Cucaita, ff. 36–124.

137 Notaría Primera, leg. Motavita, ff. 1–18. The páramo, or higher section, was subdivided much later, in 1871.

138 Notaría Primera, leg. Cucaita, folios not numbered.

139 Notaría Primera, leg. Cucaita, ff. 1–87.

140 Notaría Primera, leg. Protocolos de Siachoque y Oicatá, 1850–1856, folios not continuously numbered.

141 Mojica, pp. 140–141, 154, 163.

142 ANC, III, f. 643v.

143 Correa, III, 60.