Insufficient Land Merrifield InsufficientLand 51847.

Chapter 1 Insufficient Land

This study intimately reviews the lives and culture of Tlatepuzcan Chinantecs who re- established the small village of San Juan Palantla in northeast Oaxaca State in Southern Mexico in 1928. 1 The study follows their journey from their ancient home in San Pedro Tlatepuzco to Palantla, over a period of eighty-five years, from 1920 to 2005. But before attending to a few technical matters relating to documentation of the underlying research, I wish to remark on a recurring theme that emerges throughout this period of Palantla history, that of Insufficient Land. This theme undoubtedly also had relevance to Chinantecs of earlier periods as well. One simple statement comes to mind when I think of the Tlatepuzcan Chinantecs of the twentieth century, just two Chinantec words, a verb and a noun— tsa¹jøg² huø¹ ‘there is insufficient land’. This phrase is more to the point than any attempt to interpret it. The noun huø¹, in this context, is simply ‘the land’; and the verb prefix tsa¹- negates the verb. But the verb root jøg² that I here render ‘is not sufficient’ really states that there is not enough room —not enough room to contain all the people and not enough room for all who occupy it to work and to provide an adequate living for themselves and their families. An Illinois farmer might find Palantla land insufficient in other ways. It is located on the side of a limestone mountain. Bottom lands are negligible. The use of tractors and plows is out of the question. Slash it and burn it Poke it with a stick and drop in seed And if you do not do it in the same place too often, it yields quite well. No problem with rain, except for the fact that there may be too much. We will not go into the presence of mountain lions, vipers, and life- threatening disease. The primary problem, for a long, long time has been that the land is not as extensive as it needs to be. Mesoamericans, from whom the Tlatepuzcan Chinantecs descend, have been small farmers for well over a thousand years. Their forebears first domesticated maize somewhere along the very mountain range that is still home to the Chinantecs today, perhaps as long ago as a Chinantec-speaking community even existed as such. I actually have a hunch, unverified by any scientific inquiry of my own, that prehistoric Otomangueans had probably already transitioned from an earlier semi-nomadic existence based on foraging to one of more settled horticulture before they divided into communities speaking distinct languages such as the one from which today’s Chinantec languages have descended. And while it is presumptuous to assume to know the thoughts of an entire people, I am inclined to believe that maize farming, along with that of associated crops, has provided a satisfactory economic foundation of life for this people and for their neighbors during most, if not all, of this long period. The Tlatepuzcans I began to study in San Juan Palantla fifty years ago had a pretty tough life compared to the one I had personally experienced growing up in Midwestern United States. Communication with the Spanish-speaking community was absolutely minimal. Professional health services, as we know them, were utterly inferior. You know this last is true if you consider 1 See Chinantec Palantla [cpa] in The Ethnologue Lewis 2009. that, with a few informal lessons in tropical medicine, I became for awhile something of a renowned purveyor of “modern medicine” to Palantla and its neighboring communities Formal public education was pitiful not meaning to be disrespectful of the few teachers who taught. And yet, most of the people I met were generally well-fed and happy. Do I dare say, contented? They displayed a healthy sense of humor. To be sure, the last of the century brought change and new opportunities, but economic life, if you will, was tolerable before that. Resources were limited. People suffered and died when in other circumstances they might have found recovery and relief. A few inevitably drowned their sorrows in alcohol. I met a few who had decided that farming was not for them, and they left Palantla in search of ‘something better’. But the people were not generally in despair, except for one important factor that was a constant burden: There was not enough land for the children who were being born each year. This is the essence of their story, over recent years, since I first became acquainted with the Tlatepuzcans. “If there is no more land here, we will somehow have to go look for it somewhere else.” This is what they have done and continue to do, because: Tsa¹jøg² huø¹. This theme emerges over and over in the chapters that follow. The Tlatepuzcans of Palantla have found themselves in a terrible bind. On the one hand, they are trapped and bound by culture and heritage to the place of their birth and of their forebears. On the other hand, they find it necessary to travel elsewhere, to a place where there will be land sufficient to provide for their own families and for those of their posterity. I will not further detail here what the following chapters document in this regard, except to excerpt one ancient record that evidences the existence of this challenge for Tlatepuzcans long before 1928. Through the kindness of Palantla friends I was able to examine and copy portions of an eighteenth-century record of land litigations between San Pedro Tlatepuzco, from whence recent Palantla immigrants have come, and its near neighbor, Santiago Tlatepuzco. This record, currently kept by officials of the small village of San Felipe de León, a former dependency of San Pedro, is a 103-page, 1908 compilation of litigation records from Mexico’s National Public Archive. We learn from these records that Santiago and San Pedro, whose village centers lie perhaps seven or eight miles apart, along the San Pedro River, were once a single political unit, but with most political representation and power in the hands of the larger San Pedro group. The Santiago group then successfully separated politically from San Pedro in 1715, but without a clear demarcation of the land that had traditionally been theirs until 3 February, 1718. On that date, in court in the District town of Teutila of that era, a boundary line was established between them from a point along the San Pedro River where there then stood a certain large tree palo de gobo marked by a machete with a cross, the boundary leading to the south toward Santa Cruz Tepetotutla and to the north toward San Juan Palantla which was at that time not occupied by Tlatepuzcans. I here present in English translation just one short excerpt from those documents that comments on the land fights between San Pedro and Santiago of that day: Even more than when these [lands] were held in common, there ensued disturbances, unrest, and disputes; and, on the one hand, resenting those of Santiago for the separation they had desired and successfully attained, and, on the other hand, having been accustomed to that superiority and dominance that they had acquired by having them under their authority, the people of San Pedro continually pursued them with litigation, inconveniencing and bothering them about the land, which was the only matter in which they were dependent to them, it was determined in accordance with justice, to end once and for all the unlawful quarrels that they were having at every step, and that each side would clearly mark the lands that were assigned them. Many more examples could, of course, be brought forward of wars and disputes over land that have been one of the key factors in the diversification of Chinantecan, Otomanguean, and other populations in Mesoamerica throughout the last millennium. But I will let the rest of this volume tell its own story. Documentation This study is based primarily upon long-time residence in Palantla, under the auspices of the Summer Institute of Linguistics now SIL International and by contract with Mexico’s Secretary of Education. This time entailed language learning, participant observation, the collection and study of oral literature, formal inquiry with individual Chinantec language associates known as “informants” in 1950s parlance, and numerous research visits to Palantla that postdate our years of residence in the community. My wife and I, she seven-months pregnant, emigrated to Mexico in December 1955, to take up residence among one of several Chinantec linguistic communities, to learn, analyze, and document their language; form an alphabet based on Spanish-language writing traditions and descriptive linguistic principles; provide reading instruction; and initiate the development of a published vernacular literature that would include translations of Christian scriptures. Accordingly, two SIL colleagues Cal Rensch and Frank Robbins and I toured the Chinantec region on foot throughout most of the month of January 1956, looking for appropriate communities from which the Rensch and Merrifield families might undertake such language research and development. My choice for Grace and me became San Juan Palantla, which lay a three-hour brisk walk over a trail that rises 1500 feet above and to the WNW of Valle Nacional, Oaxaca. At the time, Valle Nacional was located 60-some kilometers south from Tuxtepec, Oaxaca, at the end of a dirt road that was still under construction and required two bridgeless river crossings and most of a day’s travel. Tuxtepec, Oaxaca, is around 600 kilometers from Mexico City by a circuitous route through the States of Puebla and Veracruz. My first visit to Tuxtepec and Valle Nacional, however, was not by that route. Rather, on 5 January, I traveled by bus from Mexico City to the City of Oaxaca and Mitla, where I rendezvoused with Cal and Frank. The following day we went on to Juchitán, in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, where we boarded a train for an eleven-hour ride to Villa Azueta, Veracruz, arriving on 7 January. From there we traveled three hours by truck and one hour on foot to Playa Vicente. From there, we walked seven and one-half hours into Oaxaca, crossing two rivers on vine suspension bridges, finally arriving in Chinantec territory on the ninth. We spent seven days gathering linguistic information in numerous southeastern Chinantec communities before returning to Playa Vicente and on to Tuxtepec, riding on top of a load of coffee. Only then, after a day to rest, did Frank and I go on to Valle Nacional on 19 January. From there we visited San Felipe de León three-hour trail, San Pedro Tlatepuzco seven-hour trail, through Santiago Tlatepuzco to Usila four hours, through San Antonio Tejas to Palantla six hours, and through San Lucas Arroyo Palomo and San Eulogio Arroyo de Banco to Valle Nacional again five hours. Later on, it would only take me three hours to Valle Nacional, but Frank and I had no help with our baggage so it took us longer that day. We then returned to Palantla for several days of further study, through 31 January, when we returned once more to Valle Nacional, Tuxtepec, and on to Mexico City, arriving 1 February. After our first daughter was born in Mexico City on 9 March, 1956, we gave support assistance to SIL in Mexico City while we became acclimated to Mexico and the SIL operation there, also assisting on staff at the SIL school at the University of Oklahoma during the summer. We finally moved to Palantla with our 8-month-old firstborn in late October, 1956. Our assignment for several years was to teach at SIL schools each summer and spend the rest of the time on our Chinantec project, until 1962, when a furlough period in the U.S. found us at Cornell University for graduate work in General Linguistics M.A. 1963 and Cultural Anthropology Ph.D. 1965. After returning to Mexico in 1965, a greater part of my time was directed to teaching and consulting with other colleagues on their projects, with less time available for Chinantec research; and another couple, Al and Pat Anderson, took on part of the Chinantec language development load. Then, in 1974, Grace and I gave up our immigrant status in Mexico when our primary assignment changed from Chinantec research and development to anthropological and community development training on an international level. From that time we have been occupied at SIL International’s International Linguistics Center, in Dallas, Texas, until “official” retirement on 1 July 2000, only returning to Mexico as occasional visitors since then. Apart from published forms of my own research and of many others that will be referenced throughout this study, several additional documents are very important to this narrative. One of the first things I did to help me effectively enter Palantla life was to obtain copies, first of the 1956 and 1957 Palantla censuses—documents produced at the end of each year as part of the responsibilities of the village Secretary. I made a sketch of village streets, paths, dwellings, and public buildings. I then made inquiry concerning the distribution of all residents among the various dwellings, and asked how all 357 members of the community, at that time, were related to one another filially and through marriage. Many additional documents were later collected, although they were not all studied immediately. These included census lists from San Pedro Tlatepuzco, one list of males only from San Antonio Ocote and San Felipe de León, numerous other Palantla census lists, and birth and death records for several years. Most recently, with the aid of the computer, these lists have all been keyboarded or scanned and then assembled into a composite list of 15,409 lines of data, each line providing personal names, dates, ages, parents, children, place of birth, and reference codes for each individual. All records are not complete—we do not know everyone’s date and place of birth, parents, and so forth—but most are. Individuals are identified throughout this study by reference to these lines of data in the following way. The 179 persons named in the 1920 San Pedro Tlatepuzco are referenced in order of their listing in the census as A001, A002, … , A179; the 191 individuals found in birth records from 1948 through 1957 are referenced in the order of their birth as B001, B002, … , B191, and so forth. Some birth records also include the names of parents and grandparents. The complete list of documents of this type that I have been able to assemble for this study is as follows, with their corresponding reference codes: A001–A179 1920 Census San Pedro Tlatepuzco B001–B191 1948–1957 Birth Records C001–C209 1921 Census San Pedro Tlatepuzco D001–D250 1925 Census San Pedro Tlatepuzco E001–E038 1921 Males San Antonio Ocote F001–F053 1921 Males San Felipe de León G001–G121 Parentage data personal research J001–J515 1946 Census Palantla K001–K345 1947 Census Palantla L001–L364 1948 Census Palantla M001–M374 1949 Census Palantla N001–N340 1956 Census Palantla P001–P377 1957 Census Palantla Q001–Q351 1962 Census Palantla R001–R306 1968 Census Palantla S001–S286 1973 Census Palantla T001–T315 1979 Census Palantla U001–U362 1981 Census Palantla V001–V380 1982 Census Palantla W001–W421 1985 Census Palantla X001–X443 1986 Census Palantla Y001–Y234 1982 location of emigrants Z001–Z117 1947–1954 death records 1001–1453 1987 Census Palantla 2001–2453 1988 Census Palantla 3001–3473 1989 Census Palantla 4001–4393 1991 Census Palantla 5001–5427 1995 Census Palantla 6001–6511 1998 Census Palantla 7001–7552 2000 Census Palantla 8001–8543 2002 Census Palantla 9001–9532 2004 Census Palantla €001–€183 1991 Communal Land Request Just one primary reference code is chosen to identify each individual cited in this narrative regardless of how many sources reference that individual. The algorithm for choosing the primary identity reference for each individual is a bit complex, simply because the various sources of data came into my possession at various stages over the course of the study. This is essentially the algorithm: 1. Inasmuch as I first devoted intensive time to the 1957 census record, the primary identity reference of all individuals listed in the 1957 census is that of the 1957 census, which is to say, P001–P377. 2. The primary identity reference of any individual named in one or more of the Tlatepuzco census records, but in none of the subsequent Palantla census records, is that of the EARLIEST Tlatepuzco reference code with which he or she is associated; i.e., Annn 1920 over Cnnn 1921, and Cnnn over Dnnn 1925. 3. The primary identity reference of any individual named only in the San Antonio Ocote or San Felipe León lists of 1921 is that of the respective list; i.e., Ennn 1921 or Fnnn 1921. 4. The primary identity reference of any individual who is only listed in Palantla census records prior to the 1957 census, is that of the MOST RECENT of those references; i.e., Nnnn 1956 over Mnnn 1949, Mnnn over Lnnn 1948, Lnnn over Knnn 1947, and Knnn over Jnnn 1946. 5. The primary identity reference of any individual who is only listed in Palantla census records subsequent to the 1957 census, is that of the EARLIEST of those references; i.e., Qnnn 1962 over Rnnn 1968, Rnnn over Snnn 1973, and so forth to 8nnn 2002 over 9nnn 2004. 6. The primary identity reference of any individual who is only listed in the 1991 Communal Land Request, is that of that document; i.e., €nnn 1991. 7. The primary identity reference of any individual who is only listed in a birth and a death record is that of the birth record: i.e., by a Bnnn reference code. 8. References in relocation records i.e., Ynnn references or in death records i.e., Znnn references are never cited as primary identities; references in parentage records i.e., Gnnn references are only cited as primary identities for individuals for whom no other documentation is available. One bit of disinformation in the 1946 census also needs to be mentioned. The 1946 list includes a great many families that never actually lived in Palantla. Palantla was an Agencia Policía in 1946, a smaller political unit in the State of Oaxaca that did not enjoy all of the organizational features of the next larger unit, the Agencia Municipal. The names of many families from other communities like San Isidro Laguna were added to the 1946 census, so that Palantla would appear larger and be given the status of Agencia Municipal. After gaining this status in 1947, the names of these nonresident families were gradually removed from the count at the end of 1947 or 1948. I had no idea when collecting these early materials that I would ever undertake this particular study. If I had, I could have studied the materials more carefully at an earlier date when many questions that still remain could have been easily answered. I was very much interested in getting to know the people and understand their way of life, but my primary assignment related to the Chinantec language. For illustrative purposes, I attach a photocopy of the first page of the 1962 census and a portion of the partially corresponding edited version p. 7 that is part of the database assembled from all available data sources. Names I do not claim that every name found in the composite list of documents or in the related narrative is exactly the name each referenced individual has adopted as his or her own name. This would have required a personal interview with all of those individuals, which did not happen. The original documents do not always give full names of all individuals nor are they fully accurate. Many discrepancies in names and ages are found in comparing the available records. The reasons for the discrepancies are multiple. I have tried to choose a correct personal name for each person followed by correct surnames. Scribal error is only part of the problem. All official records are created each year by the current town secretary, a man who is normally among the most literate and bilingual in the community. The Secretary, sitting at a typewriter 2 in the town hall, typically assembles a new census almost exclusively on the basis of his personal knowledge of the community in any given year, without direct investigation beyond asking a question or two of a fellow town official. Not only are names misspelled, individuals and entire households are occasionally inadvertently omitted altogether from the record when they have most certainly been present in the community throughout the year. They are, from one year to the next, sometimes identified by incorrect names, since a current Secretary will often also rely upon a previous census when creating a new one. 2 A machine created in the late nineteenth century ca. 1868 and still popularly used in homes and offices into the late twentieth century, for writing alphanumeric characters similar to those produced by a modern printer—but in a more primitive form, usually with only one character set at a time one type face and size—by means of keyboard- propelled symbols mechanically caused to strike a ribbon to transfer ink or carbon impressions onto paper. Figure 1.1. Photocopy of 1962 Palantla Census, page 1 A more significant problem in regard to personal names is that the Chinantec form of a Spanish personal name is the only name normally used, or even known, throughout the community. Such Chinantec names are usually, but not always, based phonologically on the Spanish name, but most of the people who use a name in daily affairs do not really know what a person’s real Spanish name is, not even the village Secretary. Since many Chinantec personal names can serve for a variety of Spanish names, the Secretary can easily get it wrong in the census. For example, Guii³liug¹³ may stand for Luciana, Luminosa , or Lourdes . Sø³tín³ may stand for Agustín, Justino, or Celestino . Personal names are traditionally chosen at Christian baptism from a published list of Roman Catholic Saints associated with each day of the year, although the names of popular Mexican celebrities are now being chosen as the twenty-first century begins. Traditionally, however, a girl born on 2 February might be named María Candelaria because that is the date recognized in the church calendar for commemorating the Virgin Mary of Candlemas. Curiously enough, one man, P282 Pedro Pablo Juan , is listed in the 1920 census as Pedro Pablo , where we would expect his surname to be Juan . The author suspected, and research later confirmed, that this young man was born on 29 July, the day in the church calendar that commemorates together the Apostles Peter and Paul. That very day was set aside in San Pedro Tlatepuzco, and later in Palantla, to honor Figure 1.2. Edited 1962 Palantla Census, page 6 their Patron, San Pedro, whose image now stands in the prominent place over the altar of the Palantla church sanctuary. Having been born on the Day of Peter and Paul, it would seem that young Master Pedro Pablo Juan was given two personal names by his forebears. As it turns out, however, with an increased use of paternal and maternal surnames by the Chinantec people in recent years, Pablo was eventually recorded as his official surname, as well as that of his sons, no matter that his father and siblings bear the expected surname Juan . The issue of accurate surnames is even more difficult. The Chinantec have not long used surnames in the consistent fashion found in the Spanish-speaking community around them. Standard Spanish usage is for an individual to take his or her father’s paternal surname followed by his or her mother’s paternal surname as their own. Roberto Hernández Maximino is, thus, so named because his father is Antonio Hernández Martínez and his mother is Virginia Maximino Pérez. In the earliest available census records, Chinantec adult males are usually listed with one surname, but adult sons seem sometimes to be listed with their father’s personal name as their surname. Furthermore, the ubiquity of certain surnames across several families in the community, or the use of personal names like Juan or Pedro as surnames by some, has motivated school teachers, in recent years, to introduce new surnames into the community by giving them to some of their students for one reason or another. One particular school teacher, Andrés Pérez Olivares, from Usila, who taught in Palantla in the 1940s, issued a number of surnames to his pupils, including Cabrera, Cardel, Ramírez, Vásquez, and probably others, but primarily as maternal surnames, which are less likely to be passed on to their children. While early records usually list adult Chinantec males with one surname, women and children usually, until very recently, were listed without any surnames at all. After all, there was no normal use of a surname in Chinantec daily life. If there are more than two Roberto s in the community, they are given nicknames like Fat Robert or Little Robert , which are often coined by peers based on a humorous event in their life. A certain young man in Palantla in the late 1950s was dubbed Quiu³ ‘his thigh’ when he was encountered with a young woman sitting on his lap ni³ quiu³ dsa . Another was dubbed Jme³ ‘skunk’ after reportedly acting like an animal trying to sneak into its lair, after he had been seen with a young woman at the edge of town. For unknown reasons, all his peers refer to one fellow as Compadre Anastacio , in spite of the fact that he is not an actual compadre a type of ritual kinsman to all of them. By comparing all available documents in a single file and by establishing, as best possible, the identity of each individual’s parents, personal names and surnames have been standardized, using standard Spanish practice except where there seems to be strong evidence that a different set of names has been adopted by the individual. I make no claim regarding absolute accuracy; only that an effort has been made to present as accurate a record as possible. Ages Ages represented in supporting documents are not always accurate. A comparison of numerous census lists shows innumerable discrepancies in the expected natural progression of the ages of listed persons. Ages and birth dates presented in the following narrative are, thus, best approximations based on the partially inaccurate data presented in census lists. The ages of wives in early records are almost invariably given as the same as those of their husbands and must, therefore, be considered even more advisedly than the latter. Only dates from birth and death records, which are produced year by year, can be counted upon to be more or less certain. Unfortunately, the number of such available records is limited. In a 2005 visit to Palantla, I learned that such records are no longer filed locally, but rather at the civic offices at the municipal center of Valle Nacional. Their collection is also much more laborious, since each birth and death is now apparently recorded individually on a separate form, rather than in a bound ledger. In years gone by, apparently annual or semiannual composite reports were assembled each year, which made such data easier to access. On the positive side, some more recent lists not only purport to state the age of an individual, but also an actual day of birth. The earliest records merely listed the current age of each person. But even the new, more complete information, appears to contain errors. We are often left only with an educated guess in regard to the ages of individuals. Represented dates of birth should, therefore, be considered in this light. There is no information at all concerning the ages of some individuals. Where there is information, be aware that dates are normally presented definitively to avoid constant repetition of approximating phrases. Marriage Chinantecs may marry in three ways. They marry traditionally by making arrangements between families or between individuals, as described in some detail later in this study. They marry at the church, either when the priest arrives in town for a major religious festival, or by travelling to a town that has a resident priest. And they marry politically, travelling to the town hall at a municipal center such as Valle Nacional. Some couples marry in all three of these ways, some just make a private pact and move in with each other, especially after a first liaison has failed or a first partner has died. Marriage is usually more formal today than it was in the early twentieth century, especially first marriages. I do not have official marriage records nor have I made serious inquiry into how each marriage partnership has been formed, although earlier census lists recorded the political status of older couples as ‘single’ if they lacked official sanction of their marriage by a trip to the town hall. In this study, when people are actually living together as spouses, I simply refer to this as marriage without reference to the legal niceties of how the liaison was formed. Personal Identification Using the foregoing information, individuals referred to in the narrative that follows are normally identified by a primary reference code and, perhaps, with a reference to their age, in order to tie them to the background documentation. Reference to a person like Mr. José Villar Vicente, for example, may occur in the narrative as P292 José Villar Vicente 1891–1965. Note that, with only sporadic census lists available, which contain no specific reference to when people die, the date of death of individuals is often more nebulous than that of date of birth. A known living person is listed in the following manner: P200 Estéfana Martínez Domínguez 1922–. A person whose status in this regard is in doubt may be listed in the same way as a person who is known to be alive or may be listed using an asterisk, as in P130 Efrén Martínez Domínguez 1934–.

Chapter 2 The Founding of Palantla, 1501–1928