Tierra y comunidad un problema irresuelto

El caso del altiplano cundiboyacense (Virreinato de la Nueva Granada) 1750-1800

Bibliographic Data

ID2839291
AuthorsDavid J Robinson (0000-0002-1669-0881, Syracuse University, corresponding author)
Year2005
Volume85
Issue1
Pages141-143
Publication date2005-02-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueHispanic American Historical Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0018-2168 • E-ISSN: 1527-1900
PublisherDuke University Press (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1215/00182168-85-1-141
OpenAlexW2079210169
LanguageES
Citations received7

The author’s wealth of data demonstrates the chaotic state of rural settlement and population distribution, change in composition, and structure in late eighteenthcentury New Granada. The repeated earlier colonial attempts to divide Indians in segregated settlements (here called resguardos) had clearly failed, and the crown decided to send a series of inspectors into the field both to report on the situation and to propose and implement solutions. The central fact was the obvious penetration and occupation of the resguardos by non-Indians, including those on haciendas and a host of settlers termed vecinos or libres in the documentation of the period. Some saw in this as an alienation and abridgment of Indian land and rights, while others recognized it as a means of development and profit, vital to opening and privatizing land in order to accommodate the ever-increasing mestizo population.In almost all of the resguardos, both the number of tributaries and the total Indian population decreased markedly in the century prior to 1750; one of the author’s principal objectives is to explain the causes and consequences of this trend. Through a detailed analysis of two visitas (Berdugo y Oquendo, 1755–57, and Moreno y Escandón,1776–78, continued by Campuzano y Lanz) in the region of Cundinaboyacá, she concludes that Indians had either changed their ethnic identity via miscegenation or had simply abandoned their resguardos to join the highly mobile population (forasteros, etc.) of the viceroyalty. Non-Indians had spread into the resguardos by renting land, and some even came to occupy positions of authority. For decades, local authorities had turned a blind eye to the entire process.The crown thus requested the visitadores to attempt to restructure the resguardos, most of which had clearly outlived their institutional purpose. If tribute payments had been significantly reduced and illicit production and commerce were widespread, it was clearly time to act. The formal solution was to review each resguardo and, based on the local evidence, either eliminate it and transfer its population to another carefully selected resguardo or, alternatively, increase its population by bringing in Indians from other decayed resguardos. While such a policy provoked questions of legality, it is evident that Indians were portrayed as vagos and flojos who underutilized valuable resources and that the burgeoning numbers of poor mestizos needed land and succor. This justified sacrificing humanitarian values for efficiency and profit.While each visitador had distinctive ideological stances, both promoted the relocation policy. They often blaming alcaldes and corregidores for their neglect of Indian affairs and their corrupt linkages to hacienda and commercial interests. Both also used the restructuring process to promote the establishment of parishes, a new jurisdictional unit that reflected the expansion of the mestizo population. Not only Indians opposed the extinction of resguardos and the wholesale removal of their population; non-Indians living within the resguardos were also affected, and they protested even more loudly. However, the viceregal authorities must have been relieved that it did not become a collective, regionwide protest (especially considering the experiences of the Comunero revolt).The second half of the book describes the conditions found in each and every corregimiento of the regions studied: the composition of the population, the auction and sale of resguardo land, and those involved in the process of recomposition. Yet one is left with many questions. First, the author uses the terms resguardo and pueblo (de indios) in text and tables indiscriminately, without examining the differences between these two terms as used in the visitas and the population census of 1778. Resguardos were spatial jurisdictions, within which existed the nucleated pueblo of Indians and other associated settlements. Here, cartographic evidence (mentioned in passing at p. 253) could have been used much more effectively, including at least a detailed map of each corregimiento. The locations of the mestizo settlements—and, indeed, the haciendas that existed on the resguardos—are not adequately defined. It also would have been very useful to reproduce, as an appendix, a sample page or two of the 1778 census showing the level of disaggregation of the population count. Several resguardos are mistakenly listed as corregimientos (pp. 191 and 254), and by the time the eighth region is being analyzed, no comparative tabulated data are presented. The conclusion would have been strengthened by a summary table listing all the resguardos affected in the restructuring process. Notwithstanding such blemishes, this is an innovative study that should promote a more rigorous analysis of other relevant data sets, such as the abundant notarial and parish records that make it possible to trace individuals and families as they change identities and locations through the complex processes that are outlined here

Archaeology · Art · Colonialism · Estate · Ethnology · Frontier · Genealogy · Geography · Human settlement · Humanities · Political science · Population · Possession (linguistics) · Sociology · Argentine historical studies · Demography · Historical Studies in Latin America · History · History and Politics in Latin America · Law

Tools

Open DOI