’ a 2 - _ 7 7 : : _ OG — a 7 oe a > 7 7 = 7 q 7 i) : - O 7 vo Penny Capitalism Penny Capitalism A Guatemalan Indian Economy Sol Tax The University of Chicago Press First published as Smithsonian Institution Institute of Social Anthropology Publication No. 16. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1953 To Alfred Vincent Kidder with affection, respect, and gratitude Ant HSONAy FEB 2 41967 LIBRARIES Yur University or Cuicaco Press, CuicaGo & LONDON The University of Toronto Press, Toronto 5, Canada Published 1963 Printed by Tae University oF Cuicaco Press Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 6120162101 ot a — Sa Leb ZhiEY Ce I a ee eee ne ithe placerand the people. .---2. .22..-2..<-<5.25 ECO UGI GT ee ee te na Pa ae 5 ae mee (Georraphv. 22262225 2228. Soe a ee RGOpUlt On eee a 52. Be 1 Bee = 2 oe The Indian community. ...2...-----22.---+- BN Greve Or itewer ake omer ee ee Sie Technology and economy____-___--------------- The kind of eeonomy.------.-------------- SLE CHNGLG hye ae teen ne A ek Technology and economy_____-------------- tbheland....-.2-.22-<2s-c2--2 Pie EPR SAO A ee Watural resources... 22222 22 25222 ee 8 hina heme ee Oe aon, ene pUN@ riveneseo=- -2 = see eee 2e oe eee FEN CRIa Keen cee =, oan = ees oe AYA Us he 25,0 0: jones ems Ne eee Oe ee ee Wildiflora2-9-=- 2222-25-24 aS et. IhanGMISee= =e see a a een ETSIR I Siri clin eee rere Ses Weltalande-.o22- ees. sess) 25. eee as Se (Goteeroritruchoern-— ee ee ee ee ce Mruck lands: 2 = 2-22 2252252 52222-2525-6 PAP UCU GUT © te ee UNEP a ace ee ee ee eee a oe WMOnnViclhS! = =s— =e een ene see tae 2 Bean-squash yields______-____________-- Truck farming... =-....-.-..-_.-=-.-2 OmonS fe ee ae tere (CES Mi Cina: ieee eee hae es Spee eee eo Eat ReanS=t8=2e2- S22 Seek As een eee eee Other vegetables________.___-________- ASSN OY=5 Cyan a pie Sess ered Pek = ea eae ae ee PODUNOS so en ee ea eee Ol Gee ee a ne ee er eee eee DSI eee eee eee ee Vegetable-pear________ eo Ne Land ownership and practices__________________. Common lands_________________-_--_--____- Privately owned land____-._____._______-_- Ladino owners_____-______________-__- Indian owners____.-.--------_-_--____- Resident Indians______._____________-- Tenure and transfer_____-_________----_-_-- Inheritance 222 25-2222 2582 3525s eee The inheritance of household No. 49_____ The inheritance of household No. 58~- ~~ The inheritance of household No. 55. ~~~ SSULIIV TAY SN = me eee eee Ibandias«collaterale=. 2 = 222 82 Se ee Land pawning=.. 22222220205 S22 2a5 ue CONTENTS Land ownership and practices—-Continued Iban cdirentinoe |S 228 Land values_______- a Bil entks 3 eee o co en A ee Delta truck land___. _____ Coffee land_____._- Mis OT =. sacs oe A ek Pheuseiol tine =. 2-5. ee A‘rerdifferencesees =e so = == eee ee Sex differences_ _ hietmilpas ene. ses. see eee eee Truck gardening- - Bruites ee 2 hee ee een Animal husbandry_-__--__-_-_-_-_-__ INirewOOdes == 25- Jee tee eee ee are FL OUSIN Oe oe ee eee re ee Clothing = Soe Soe eee Housekeeping_-_--------.--------- Thoad tranny & ees see Se ee SUmmany2= 322) Sees oe ee Dpecial Occupations: 2-2-2 -cce ene eee Artisans and miscellaneous business - - --- ipractitioners=- 2-22 = see so ===ssos5-=—= Aoriculiuralia bors sees a= a Labor practices and wages_--_---------- Rreedom:of laborso=2.5.- = oe = eee ae ae The business of agriculture___— _-- Apriculttire--=22_---_--- a SG MU a Se eee Se ee sRablonGrops=s2449=) 26 ee aa eee Onions=-= 5) See ee ee (CPN Nees oie ee ee Seo ee eer Vegetables grown from imported seed _ Root crops and peppers. - ~~ ---- a Horses and mules_--2 222-22 22-2252 2-— Dops and cats! 224 eee eee eee Summary: Costs and profits._..-------- vi VI CONTENTS PAGE The business of agriculture—Continued The level and cost of living—Continued Disposaitalpredice-=2. 5-2 .25-s-0255----— 121 Equipment=) 2224-5 25252 as eee The localamarket_2—-°-- = a eee 123 Ceremonial, festive, and miscellaneous ex- Oitsidelmarkets- 26 sah. aeons 125 penses:.. 22°. 35 eee oe ee eee Farm (businéss: s5=.2-= <4 = 222 = = one ke ee . Income from trades, professions, and special OCCUpAtIONSe sae) a eee = ae sone es see . Persons with special occupations___________-- . Full-time laborers . Local Indian labor in Ladino fields_____--___- . Cost and gross and net return per acre of milpa, . Labor required to grow 10 cuerdas of milpa-. __ . Cost of growing onion products (per acre) ____- . Labor required to grow onions from seed . Labor required in growing onion seed________- . Cost of growing garlic . Man-days required and cost of growing beans imemanden! bedes 2.24. -- scence nese noes Cost of growing pepinos Cost of an acre of coffee in and income from fruit growing, 1936 . Total cost of agricultural products_____--_--- . Value of agricultural products . Time devoted to agriculture . Value of domestic animals owned . Estimated costs of and returns from domestic animals, 1940 . Households habitually represented by vendors in various markets TABLES PAGE 44 45. » for) oe oon an = ov or Or Or Bons ooe’e; Sot ao SConx7 sl eee ate ae as or PANES . Indians Produce brought to the Panajachel market by local Indian women (1937) ___---------- Summary of Panajachel vendors in weekday market. (L937) sere see oe eee Se . Constitution and source of produce of vending groups in outside markets________--------- . Summary of time devoted to marketing-_----- . Time spent vending in the local market___---- . Time devoted to visiting outside markets - -_-- Vendors in the Panajachel market_---------- Annual average prices in Guatemala City_---- Hogs slaughtered in SololA___--------------- Onion prices: 2. 2245-25522. ee ene Isinds*of Wouses2-<-= 2-5 s-22==5s- 2. 3224 22S Average cost of Indian houses, 1937__-------- Materials and time used in building a mass- adobeshouse22 2-2-0 3 at eee a ee . Value of Indian houses, 1937______.-_------- Time devoted to kitchen work, 1936_____----- . Panajachelefio weavers____.---------------- . Time consumed in domestic production, 1936__ s }@ostimese =e Gan . Probable costumes of those on whom census . Seven-day food intake (1944) of six families (intnetjerams) 2.2.5 2- 2524 33 2a « Food consumption. 2255-2 -2-2222se2-222= Household furnishings and supplies, and toOlS? = <===22s225 See ece sites ssocssSesees . Ceremonial, fiesta, and miscellaneous ex- eNSseS 1 ORG eee ee ee Expenditures of officials for rituals__.-------- . Expenditures for publie rituals_------------- Personal expenses, taxes, ete___------------- Summary of expenditures in 1936___--------- The balance of payments___._.__------------- . Comparison of average food intake in rural Guatemala per nutrition unit per day------ . Wealth of Panajacheleio households involved . Wealth of households renting agricultural land__- . Distribution of Panajachel textile workers_____ recularly employed by Indians in RAnATACHEl eee eee ee ee See ene . Distribution of domestie animals_____-------- . Wealth of 10 households__._....-.---------- . Rooms and living space of 10 households-___--- . Number and kinds of beds in 10 households -_- - . Seven-day food intake (1944) of six families per nutrition unit per day--..---—.2==.-=-— . Panajachelefio costume distribution. ~~~ ------ PREFACE The title of this book is intended to be catchy, but it should also convey in two words what the book describes: a society which is “capitalist” on a microscopic scale. There are no machines, no factories, no co-ops or corporations. Every man is his own firm and works ruggedly for himself. Money there is, in small denominations; trade there is, with what men carry on their backs; free entrepreneurs, the impersonal market place, com- petition—these are in the rural economy. But commerce is without credit, as production is with- out machines. It turns out that the difference between a poor people and a rich one is the differ- ence between the hand and the machine, between money and credit, between the merchant and the firm; and that all these are differences between the ‘“‘modern” economy and the primitive ‘“under- developed”’ ones. In laying bare the bones of an underdeveloped economy, this study hopes first to contribute to the understanding of what such an economy looks like. The community dealt with has only 800 people (although the regional economy of which it is part has a thousand times more); it is an in- significant place in a rural area which Guatemala thinks of as its backwoods. But it is just the “backwoods” which must be explored, for an economically undeveloped nation is undeveloped to the degree that it has backwoods. The com- munity which this book describes is in that way typical of the thousands which must be changed. From place to place in the world, on the other hand, such communities are very different. Lach continent and each region has its own kinds, and in the end, of course, every one is unique. The culture of Mexico and Guatemala is very different from that of Pakistan or Kenya. The first advice one offers the administrator of a program is to know the place and the people and the character of the culture. In this instance a striking peculiar- ity is the combination of a childish, magical, or “primitive” world view with institutions reminis- cent in microcosm of the Great Society. In most “primitive” societies about which anthropologists write, people behave in our terms irrationally, since they try by devices strange to us to maximize different, hence curious, satisfactions. This hap- pens not to be the case in the part of Guatemala about which I write, where the social institutions and cosmology, strange as they may be to us, are as separated from the processes of making a living as are our own. For this reason the institutions need concern us but little in a description of the economy; for this reason also it is possible to use the same terms to describe their economy that are used to describe our own. There is no economic theory in this book. Iam simply describing the way a people live, picking out those elements to describe that I understand fit under the rubric of “economy.’”’ It might be argued that by selection of the same things to describe that economists select in writing about our society, I prejudge the similarity of Panajachel economy to our own. This really says that I am asking about Panajachel some of the same ques- tions that are asked by economists about our own society. This is true. But the significant thing is that I am able to answer the questions; and that is because the Panajachel economy is like ours. If I tried to ask about a tribe of Australian aborigines what is its balance of payments, I should soon have to reinterpret the question so drastically that it would not be the same. Although I purpose to describe the economy of Panajachel, and at least by inference to show why the material level of life is low, no solution is offered. A very good reason for this is that while the problem has its consequences locally, its cure involves the whole region, the whole of the larger society, and, indeed, much of the world. I have studied a cell in an organism, an example of many that are like it; but the organism consists of differ- ent kinds of cells in complex interrelation, and studies of the larger whole are essential to planning its solution. For such studies, the theory, methods, and techniques of disciplines other than Ix x PREFACE anthropology are needed. I once asked Jean Learned, an economist who studied these mate- rials on Panajachel, what she as an economist would have done differently. The considered reply was unexpected to me, yet wholly obvious. As an economist she would not have spent years in a community of 800 people without records of prices and the like. Panajachel is a place for the skills of (say) an anthropologist, not an economist. Conversely, an anthropologist is not trained to cope with the problems of a nation in the world community. Let me not be understood to minimize the im- portance of study at the local level, or of the use- fulness of the anthropological (cultural) point of view at all levels. But this is a study at the local level, and essential as it may be to understanding the whole, it is the study by an anthropologist of an anthropologically oriented problem. The econ- omist will learn from it much about the economy of a community in Guatemala. He will also learn something about anthropologists (as he can learn more from Firth and Herskovits and others) and the way one anthropologist studies a place like Panajachel. I do not expect that he will learn any economics. Nor do I suppose my colleagues in anthropology will learn economics from me. What I offer is a conception of how one studies a primitive money economy. My own work falls short of an ideal because I had no model. Here is a pattern from which others may depart. This book has been long in coming. A first short draft was written during the winter of 1938— 39. I was encouraged by Dr. W. F. Ogburn to extend this to a full study. It was completed in June of 1943, when Dr. Ogburn was also kind enough to write a foreword. Delay of publication, first because of the war and then by desire to revise the manuscript, was fortunate, both because in the intervening years I learned much from colleagues at the University, and because the long delay permitted a fresh approach to the manuscript. I think it does not matter that the economy is described as of a period 10 years past (and indeed from a 1936 base) because if it is interesting it should be as representative of a type, relatively independent of time and place. My original field notes on Panajachel have been microfilmed and as part of a series are available in many libraries, well enough indexed so that I think a patient reader can use them in connection with this volume. This is one of three books which I hope to write from these materials; a second describes the world view of the Indians: the third, their social institutions. Meanwhile the materials on these subjects may be studied in their original form. Whoever looks at them will note that my wife and I (later with our young daughter) lived in Panajachel on and off from the autumn of 1935 to the spring of 1941, and that Juan de Dios Rosales, an educated Panajacheleiio who was a school teacher ia 1936 and who became my assistant (and eventually an anthropologist in his own right) collected a great deal of the data in the earlier years. Jt was not until the last field season (1940-41), however, that I systemat- ically collected much of the essential data on the economy. By then I had done much work on this book and had begun to know what I was looking for. From 1934 to 1946 I was on the staff of the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Division of Historical Research. This work was done as part of the Division’s grand plan for studying various aspects of Mayan indian culture. How much I owe to its recently retired director, Dr. A. VY. Kidder, for his patience and encourage- ment, I attempt to say by dedicating this book to him. From my colleague and teacher, Robert Redfield, with whom I have worked so closely both at home and in the field, I have received much more than I can acknowledge. I recall with pleasure the friends in Guatemala who helped us, and especially our Indian friends, whom we still miss; and jump without difficulty to my colleagues at the University of Chicago, who through the years teach me humility. I have said that my wife shared with me the experience in Guatemala; this book is hers, too. Sou Tax. Tue University oF CHIcaGo, May 1, 1951. THE PLACE AND THE PEOPLE LOCATION Panajachel is one of three hundred fifty-odd municipios into which the Republic of Guatemala is divided. These municipios, not unlike our townships, are political subdivisions, but in the region where Panajachel is located they are also important cultural and economic units (Tax, 1937). Although they have a common basis, the Indians of each municipio differ in language and general culture and, since there is a tendency toward marriage within the municipio, in sur- names and physical appearance. Not the least significant of the differences among municipios is in economic specialization, which may be partly, but only partly, accounted for by local variations of altitude and terrain. Since such specialization in production leads to trade, and since no municipio is economically self-sufficient, it is not possible to limit such a discussion as this to Panajachel (or any other municipio) alone; nor can it be assumed that any municipio is “ typical’”’ and its economy representative of all. Panajachel is 1 of 11 municipios (map 1) whose lands form the circumference of Lake Atitlin which lies about 45 miles west of Guatemala City. The lake, at an altitude of some 5,100 feet, occupies an immense caldera formed by volcanic crustal collapse; it has been partially dammed also by volcanic growth on the south shore (McBryde, 1933, pp. 63-64; 1947). The volcanoes of Tolim4n and San Pedro start abruptly from the southern shore; cliffs rise precipitously and almost uninter- tuptedly from the edge of the water to heights of 1,000 feet and more. Consequently there are few natural town sites on the shore itself and only a small number even near the lake. Certain sites, therefore, assume commercial importance. The only good outlets to the rich coastal regions in the south are on either side of the volcano of Tolim4n, where the ground levels off before meet- ing the lake, and here are found the towns of San Lucas and Atitlan, perhaps the most prosperous in this region. On the north shore two streams that flow into the lake have cut wide enough valleys, and built sufficiently broad deltas, to form natural town sites. One of these is the Panajachel River, on the banks of which is situated the town of Panajachel; the other is the Quixcap, which forms the delta called Jaibal, the site (until it was disastrously flooded three centuries ago (VAzquez, 1937, p. 171) of San Jorge, now situated far up on the cliff above. Both Panajachel and Jaibal are busy ports for the water traffic across the lake. The former, however, is much more important, because a town is nearby, because the main highway from the capital to the west passes through it, and because gasoline launches as well as canoes may be accommodated. A glance at map 1 will make this clear. The lake towns as a group are in a particularly strategic position in this part of Guatemala, lying as they do between the warm lowlands and the cold highlands. The great region of tropical agriculture (coffee, bananas, cotton) of the Pacific slope is in a belt lying at altitudes of from three to five thousand feet. In the portion of this belt lying just south of the lake are to be found great 1 2 THE PLACE AND THE PEOPLE plantations and the important commercial towns of Mazatenango, Chicacao, and Patulul, whose markets are centers for distribution not only of the crops of the plantations, but of products (such as cattle, fish, and salt) coming from the coastal plain. The region above the lake, on the other hand, is that of temperate agriculture (wheat, wool, potatoes, etc.). This 1s the typical “Indian country,” of small landholdings and of local spe- cializations in crops and manufactures (pottery, baskets, rope, leather goods, textiles), and here such towns as SololA and Tecp4n are vital market centers for all the goods produced in the highlands. The produce of the lowlands and of the highlands is transported on the backs of Indians and ex- changed in the market towns of both regions. One of the most used routes between the two is via Lake Atitlan, and the stream of Indian merchants skirting or crossing the lake is con- tinuous. Many of them are from the lake towns themselves, especially from Atitlan; a large pro- portion pass through Panajachel, with which San Lucas and Atitlan share first importance in the north-south trade routes. Panajachel, more than other lake towns, occupies a place of importance on an east-west trading axis as well. There is considerable com- merce between communities such as Quezaltenango and Totonicapan in the western highlands and Guatemala City to the east. One of the two main highways passes through Panajachel, and Indians afoot with their freight, or in trucks, and no little Ladino passenger travel in busses and private cars, keep the road busy. Most of the trafic simply passes through, but some of the travelers make Panajachel an overnight stop and of course a portion of the freight has its origin or its terminus here. Panajachel is the only lake town that is thus on a major cross roads. Nevertheless, Panajachel is commercially far less important than Sololé, some 5 miles (by road) to the north and some 1,800 feet above it. Solola is not only the capital ot the department to which all the lake towns, and some others, belong, but it has a population of 3,750 (1940)—mostly Ladinos—and is the site of one of the largest markets in the entire region (McBryde, 1933). Almost all merchants passing through Panajachel pass also through Sololé, and a large part of Panajachel business is actually transacted in Sololé. Besides, Solola is the goal of many mer- chants from the north and west, and from the towns on the west shore of the lake, who never visit Panajachel at all. GEOGRAPHY Aside from a small alluvial area which is the site of the main portion of the plantation “San Buenaventura,” the municipio of Panajachel is conveniently divisible into what may be called the “delta”? and the “hill” (map 2). The delta is that of the Panajachel River. It is roughly triangular, the tip to the north, the base bordering the lake, and is bisected by the river. The sides of the delta are sharply defined by rocky hills which rise abruptly; the hillsides look down upon the delta area, and confine it. The delta is almost flat, sloping only slightly from north to south, a lush region of coffee groves and green vegetable gardens, all watered by an intricate network of ditches having their source in the river. The rough hills are cultivated only in patches, and cattle occasionally graze on them. Nobody lives on the hillsides, but all the length and breadth of the delta is dotted with houses. The hills are mysterious and dangerous, in native belief, inhabited by supernatural beings. In them strange things happen, especially at night and when one is alone. The hills are called the monte, best translated “wilds” (as well as ‘country’’); the whole of the delta is called the pueblo or town. The monte, of course, extends beyond the hill- sides that border the town, both within and with- out the municipio of Panajachel; most of the land traversed from town to town is monte. But virtually all the monte lands owned or tilled by the Indians of Panajachel are on the hillsides over- looking the delta and the lake;! it is to them that reference will be made in this paper when the term “hill land’”’ is used. The smaller delta, the site of San Buenaventura, is also part of the municipio of Panajachel; the plantation, which includes the whole delta and the hills above it, is owned by one family, and its Indian inhabitants are laborers brought from other communities. This, as well as several other plantations in the northern monte of the municipio, is not considered in the present study. What will concern us here is the area of the delta of the Panajachel River and its bordering hills. 1 With the exception of a few pieces of land in the municipios of Santa Catarina and San Antonio Palapo and in San Jorge. THE PLACE AND THE PEOPLE THE MUNICIPIO OF PANAJACHEL , GuaTEMALA AND ITS ENVIRONS + MuNiciPto BASE ADAPTED FROM, AND SCALE ‘ AFTER, F.W. Mc BRYDE (1936). Mun- i OF CHICHI - IC/P/0 BOUNDARIES ADAPTED FROM). ae ao OF OFFICIAL CENSUS BUREAU AST ENANGO AP (1940) BY JORDAN ALEGRIA + ‘ ere ad * ee 4 \ ~ ‘ to oO MLES 1 +t j Taek aa ig B PANIMACHE urdiciPio DouNDARE ae — ~ —— —Suspivisions oF PANAJACHEL LAY NIC! Plo OF + a “ camer Avro Roans, TRAns CoNce E PCION t 2 ee os NCLOSED PORTION = AREA OF LARGE Mops xm + # ‘ x Kx : ’ is ae as ge * 4 Fen + \ are a os tere YY “MUNICIPIO ~*, “ ; ‘ | 5 ee Waa * x ie an } FINCA 8 Dad | % f~ VicToRiaA : 1‘ —_ ‘ + ae @ x , ‘ ARS ~ x + ne | PATANATREN x oN J fr J nsciviod : a Bidet +4X% ~~" Municipio oF fea oe “ S. ANDRES <._ SEMETABAJ ce OE he . ‘Municipid’ 2 “OF STA. CaTART 4 boa SNA PaLopo ¥* Map 2.—The municipio of Panajachel (scale=1:3,580). ao e wm Se) —_T Ww e N a THE PLACE AND THE PEOPLE 5 The Panajachel delta has an altitude above sea level of from 5,100 feet (the altitude of the lake) to about 5,200 feet. The climate is mild, the tem- perature rarely falling below 50° F. or rising above 80°. The mean temperature is remarkably con- stant throughout the year, varying only between 64° and 67.5° F. The diurnal range varies, how- ever, with the wet and dry seasons, from about 30° in January to about 16° in June. The afternoon temperatures during the dry season are consider- ably warmer than during the rainy season. There is some rain in the dry season, and there are many days without rain in the rainy season; but it may be said that from the beginning of May to the end of October it rains heavily for a few hours each day, and during the remainder of the year it almost never rains. In the rainy season outside work is often im- possible for days at a time, and the Indians save many inside jobs for these months. Sickness is then much more prevalent. It is difficult to go to market and to earn wages, just when the basic breadstuff, maize, is scarcest and must be bought at high prices. The river is high and impossible to cross sometimes for days, and there is always the danger of its overrunning and destroying one’s land and house. The river, from which flow almost all the irriga- tion ditches, is a narrow stream in the dry season; but when it rains in the hills above, it becomes a raging brown torrent carrying rocks and branches and other debris down to the lake. At such times the stream divides into three or four channels, changing its entire course in a moment and, run- ning along the banks, undermines and erodes the fertile soil of the edges. Each summer hundreds or even thousands of square feet of good agricul- tural soil are washed into the river bed.? Houses have been destroyed, and families, losing all their land, have been forced to borrow shelter or become laborers on the coast. How long this condition has prevailed I do not know, but the Indians have a legend to the effect that the river has been on a rampage since a deposed priest vengefully buried a figure of Christ somewhere near its source.’ It would be arbitrary to divide the municipio into urban and rural sections. The delta is inhabited; the hills are not. In the delta a small area laid out in streets contains the municipal buildings, the church, and the market place. It might be called the town, but since officially and otherwise the whole delta is so designated, it would be better to call it the town center. Over the rest of the delta the people live rather evenly dispersed, irregularly among the coffee fields and the garden plots (map 3). The town center is on the west bank of the river relatively near the apex of the delta. Most of the outlying area extends therefore to the south. The most strictly Indian portion, where most of the pure Panajachel Indians have their homes and fields, is on the other side of the river where they live almost to the exclusion of others. The town center, or west side of the river, is occupied largely by Ladinos and by Indians immigrant from other towns. It also contains such extraneous elements as hotels and country homes of wealthy Guatemalans and foreigners, for the most part along the lake shore between the river and the west edge of the delta. The Ladinos tend to live close to the town center; the wealthier, the closer. This is general Guate- malan custom, although in Panajachel the arrange- ment seems to be breaking down because of the development of a “gold coast” section along the lake shore. In the immediate town center there is almost no cultivated land except the patio flower gardens. But in the remainder of the delta it may be said that the land is primarily devoted to crops, the dwellings occupying only small pieces surrounded by fields and orchards. In fact the houses are so often hidden by surrounding vegetation that a first attempt at mapping missed more than half of them. The automobile highway from Guatemala City crosses the river from the east about a mile and a half above the town center, runs south through town and then west to the southwest corner of the delta, whence it climbs steeply to Solol4 and points north and west. In the delta it is a broad and straight road, unsurfaced except for cobblestones in the center of town. The other wide roads shown 2 Of a half-acre piece of land used for an experimental cornfield in 1936, for example, the river washed away in that one season at least 200 square feet. 3 A rival story has it that when sugarcane was introduced in PanajJachel, jealous canegrowers of another town (San Martin Jilotepeque) caused the river to become wild. The Maudslays visited Panajachel in 1894 and write, “There are times during the wet season when the sudden increase in the vol- ume of water threatens the safety of the town, and we were told that not many years ago an inundation caused great damage, washing away some of the houses, and cutting off the townspeople from all outside communication” (Maudslay, 1899, p. 57). The photograph of Panajachel published by the Maudslays in 1899 shows that at the time of their visit the river had a quite different course from when McBryde photographed the delta in the early thirties. The reader is referred to McBryde's excellent photographs, published in 1947, for a general picture as well as for this comparison. 6 THE PLACE AND THE PEOPLE on map 3 are also used by automobiles, except that in the rainy season the river cannot usually be forded. The main footpaths are from 2 to 4 feet in width. The smaller ones, connecting the houses with one another and with the main paths and roads, accommodate only single files. Cul- verts for the passage of the irrigation ditches are covered over in most cases by logs and earth; but crossing the smaller paths the ditches are usually left open, to be stepped over by the pedestrian. The irrigation ditches vary in width from 1 to 2 feet. Only the main ones are shown on map 3, but it can be seen that every part of the delta is fed by the network. The truck lands that are watered from the ditches are cultivated in small raised beds and the water flows between them when it is required. Any of the ditches can be cut off by a barrier of branches, rocks, and earth; sluice gates are not used. During the rainy season the main ditches must be watched carefully at their sources lest the water flow beyond control. Dur- ing the dry season, on the other hand, there is often a shortage of water and only part of the network can be used at one time. A certain amount of cooperation is therefore required throughout the year among those who make use of the irrigation system. The census of 1921 (Guatemala, 1924, Fourth Census, pt. 2, pp. 186-187) is the latest published census report which subdivided the populations of the municipios by location. (The detailed results of the 1940 census are not published.) The 1921 census subdivides the municipio of Panajachel as follows: The pueblo of Panajachel, population-___--_-_-- 1, 041 The hamlet of Patanatic, population__---__----_-- 82 The plantations of La Dicha, Sta. Victoria, Nativi- dad, Jestis Maria, and 8S. Felipe Bella Flcr, POONA WON © 2. Aes oe ae eee ss ee ee 257 The flour mill of 8S. Buenaventura, population_____ The lake ports of Tzanjuyi and Monterrey, popula- GIG TNA ee se Oe ete ee ee ee nee ae 62 Of these divisions, the only ones included in this study are the pueblo (which occupies the delta portion of map 3) and the two “lake ports,” the first of which les just beyond the southwest corner of the map and the second a short distance to the 30th Tzanjuyti and Monterrey are sites of hotels, and at the time of this study the second was not a port at all. On the other hand, when this study was made there was another port, called Santander, still farther to the east. east. Patanatic is a settlement of Indians who came two or three generations ago from the municipio of Totonicap4n to the northwest. It may be con- sidered a colony of Totonicapefios * who remain socially and economically distinct from the Indians of Panajachel. Patanatic is located in the hills north of Panajachel along the automobile highway just before it descends to the river and delta of Panajachel (map 2). The plantations Santa Victoria, Natividad, and Jestis Maria are to the north (map 2). La Dicha and Bella Flor are in the east delta (map 3). They are not plantations in the sense of having a permanent population of laborers. San Buenaventura, called a flour mill in the census, was at the time of this study a large and populous coffee plantation. The main portion of it is near the lake shore on a small delta just west of the Panajachel delta (map 2). POPULATION To the 1921 census figure of 1,041 for the ‘DHueblo” should be added the population of the ports and the two plantations of the delta, for a total of 1,113 living in the main delta portion. Records in the municipal hall show that in the 15 years from 1921 to 1936, 365 more births were registered than deaths (table 1). The pueblo’s portion of this increase would be some 288, and the 1,113 of 1921 should have increased naturally to 1,401. Such a figure takes no account of immi- gration or emigration; but I know no reason to believe that one outweighed the other greatly during this period. The 1940 census gave an “urban” population (probably including every- thing but Patanatic) of 1,871. Yet in 1936, we could account for only about 1,200 inhabitants in the delta. A careful census of the Indians re- vealed a few less than 800, and since only 62 Ladino families and 7 odd individuals were casually counted, it is not likely that there were more than about 400 Ladinos. Whatever the cause of the discrepancy between my figures and those inferred from official sources, for the pur- poses of this study the population will be taken as about 1,200. The distinguishing characters of Ladinos and Indians, the two classes of people officially recognized in Guatemala, differ to some extent in 4 The Spanish manner of designating inhabitants of towns will be used in this report; thus, an Atiteco is from Atitl4n, an Antofero from San Antonio Palopé, ete. THE PLACE AND THE PEOPLE i different parts of the Republic, but in general a Ladino is anybody who is not an Indian, and an Indian is defined on the basis of cultural and linguistic criteria rather than on physical features (Tax, 1937, p. 432). In Panajachel the Indians are distinguishable from Ladinos because their mother tongue is Indian and their command of Spanish relatively poor, because they wear a costume distinct from that of the Ladinos (which is pretty uniform over the whole country), and because their surnames are usually of Indian rather than of Spanish origin. It is possible for an Indian to come to be considered a Ladino by both groups if he speaks Spanish like a Ladino, bears a Spanish surname, and adopts the clothing and the ways of life of the Ladinos. It must be borne in mind that since the distinction is cultural rather than physical, Indian and Ladino are not primarily thought of as race designations in the sense that Negro and White are in the United States. But there are important economic and social differences between the two classes, and each constitutes in large degree a community apart from the other. This study is concerned primarily and almost entirely with the /ndians of Panajachel. TABLE 1.—Births and deaths, 1921-36, excluding stillbirths ! Tost Number of | Number of | Excess of births deaths births 61 24 37 74 30 44 58 29 29 72 37 35 59 32 27 70 40 30 66 34 32 68 40 28 66 31 35 76 46 30 58 41 17 80 7 10 90 42 48 62 36 26 79 57 22 1,039 589 450 1 Compiled from records ir the Municipal Hall of Panajachel. The figures represent totals of all births and deaths registered; at the time the figures were abstracted from the records (a Jong task because each case is hand-written in paragraph form) we were too insufficiently acquainted to be able to distin- guish registrations of local residents from those of transients; nor could we distinguish those of Patanatic and the various fincas from those of the town. This should have been done. Stillbirths are excluded here; in the records they are registered only as births. Although officially the population is divided into Indian and Ladino, actually four classes of people are distinguishable in Panajachel. First there are the wealthy and educated Ladinos who participate almost completely in the culture of + In the 1940 census, for the first time, the phrase ‘‘Whites and Mestizos’’ was substituted for ‘‘Ladinos,”’ however, the change represents one only of Official language. modern civilization. They are relatively large landholders, government officials, and keepers of large stores. They may own automobiles and radios and they sometimes have homes in Guate- mala City. They always wear good store clothes, shoes, and neckties; they normally speak a culti- vated Spanish and no Indian, and are usually fair- ly well educated. In this class are included the few foreigners in town. Second, there are the poor Ladinos, who participate less in the culture of modern civilization and are culturally more akin to the Indians. Unlike the first group, and like the Indians, they are proletarian rather than bourgeois, working on the soil or as artisans; their clothes are countrified and they often do not wear shoes or neckties; their Spanish is that of unedu- cated persons, and their literacy rate is very low. Many of them speak the Indian language in ad- dition to Spanish. The first class may be called urban, the second rural. The rural Ladinos came to Panajachel for the most part from other small towns, the urban Ladinos from the cities and larger towns. All came within the present century, the rural Ladinos generally earlier than the others. Although in cultural, social, and economic ways of life the two groups are easily distinguishable, there are cases of passage of individuals from the poor to the wealthy class. In such cases more than economic success, however, is necessary, for education and general sophistication are also pre- requisites of the higher status. The Indians are also divisible into two groups, but these groups are not thought of as relatively inferior or superior, as are the two kinds of La- dinos. First, there are the Indians of the Pana- jachel community who may or may not trace all of their ancestry back to Panajachel forefathers, but who consider themselves Panajachelefios culturally, speak the Panajachel dialect, and participate in the politico-religious organization of the commu- nity. Indians from other towns have married Panajachelefios, and their offspring have become in every social sense Panajachelefios. Indeed, there is at least one case of a family with not a drop of old Panajachelefio blood that is in every other sense a Panajachelefio family—thought of so by themselves and by the others as well.6 Pana- 6 Descended from an immigrant from Sta. Lucfa Utatl4n who married a woman of Patztin who later married a Panajachelefio and brought up her first children in the local community. One of these married a Sololateca whose family are all in Panajachel, and this couple have children indistin- guishable from local Indians except that the daughters—like some other Panajachelefias—wear the San Andrés blouse! 8 THE PLACE AND THE PEOPLE jachelefios speak a dialect, wear a costume, and have certain beliefs and ways of life distinct from those of the Indians of other towns; they are a social and cultural unity. Secondly, there are in Panajachel a number of Indian families, origi- nally of other towns, who do not participate, or who participate very little, in the social, political, and religious community of Panajachelefios. They wear the costumes of their own towns, and often continue the pursuit of economic specialties brought with them; their language and mentality is more like that of their blood relatives than of their present neighbors. Some of these families have lived in Panajachel only a few years; some indeed came just before the time of this study and have since left. Those that are more perma- nently settled tend to marry their children with Panajachelefios and thus eventually become ab- sorbed into the local community. ‘The allocation of particular individuals or families to one Indian group or the other is therefore to some extent arbitrary; and that is one reason why all locally resident Indians were included in this study of the economic life of the community. The municipios of Guatemala (and Chiapas as well: Redfield and Villa, 1939, p. 107) are of two general kinds. In the one, the Indians live on their farms in the country and come into the town where they often set up housekeeping at intervals. In the other, they live in the town itself and repair to the surrounding countryside when necessary to till the fields (Tax, 1937, pp. 427-433). Pos- sible explanations of the difference need not be discusse | here. A consequence of it is that in the “Vacant town’? municipios the Indians tend to lead a dual life alternating between their isolated country homes and the town, while in the “town- nucleus’’ municipios the rural territory, which is uninhabited, achieves importance only incident- ally to agriculture. Unlike the Indians of Yuca- tan, for example, the Guatemalans of this region are not accustomed to live on their cornfields during periods of work (Redfield and Villa, 1934, p. 68); hence in town-nucleus municipios the men leave their town homes for no more than a day at a time to work in their cornfields. It is apparent from the description already given that Panajachel is a variety of town-nucleus municipios. The Indians live in a restricted area, and their cornfields are outside this area. It is true that they do not live in a compact town, that their homes are dispersed outside of the town center, and that orchards and gardens lie around their houses; but the whole delta is considered the “town,” the Indians have but one home, and their cornfields, to which they go to work a day at a time, lie outside. The allocation of Pana- jachel to one town type or the other is not in itself important; but it is well to remember that Pana- jachel and the other municipios of the lake differ in this fundamental ecological respect—with whatever economic and social consequences are involved—from most of the other municipios of the region. THE INDIAN COMMUNITY In the portion of Panajachel under discussion there lived, in 1936, an Indian community of 780 persons. This figure does not include Indians for the most part from other towns who lived as servants in hotels or the homes of Ladinos or as laborers on the plantations. It does include Indians from other towns who lived as domestics and hired hands in the homes of local Indians. It does not include three families, part Indian, who, in all respects but ancestry, are Ladino. Of the 780 individuals, 688 might be called ‘“Pana- jachelefios,” having at least some Panajachel blood or family connections, and entering into the religious and political life of the local Indian community. The remainder, 92 in number, were “foreign”? Indians with no Panajachel family connections. Included among the Panajache- lefios were additional foreign Indians. 8 men and 28 women, married to Panajacheleifios,’ having thereby become part of the traditional community. The remainder of 652 ‘‘ultra-pure’’ and part-blood Panajachelefios does not represent the total of the species in the wider region, however. Con- siderable numbers have migrated from Pana- jachel to other towns, to the capital, and to the coast plantations and have lost their connections with the local community. The genealogies collected uncovered 46 such who are still remem- bered (and some of whom occasionally return) but there must be more. Table 2 classifies the 780 Indians of this study by sex and age. The figures on age, data for which were not collected with sufficient complete- ness or accuracy to be used, are based on the 7 One man and three women were not married to Panajachelefios, but related in other ways. THE PLACE AND THE PEOPLE 9 assumption that the age distribution for the In- dians of 1936 was the same as that given in the 1921 census (Guatemala, 1924, Fourth Census, pt. 1, pp. 303-305) for the whole population of the municipio. Table 3, based on an analysis of the census made in 1936 and taking into consideration the age distribution shown in table 2, reclassifies the population, adding a distinction between “Panajachelefio” and ‘‘Foreign” Indians. TABLE 2.—Indian population by sex and age ! Je i : AUST roenhe Number of Indians, 1936 Age group Male |Female| Total | Male | Female]... 074m Under 7 18 20 7-14_. a 12 14-18_ 10 8 19-40. 37 40 40-60__- - a lyf 14 (GA7{2) ok £11 eae ees 2 6 Totalis-2-2222 101 100 1 The census of 1921 (p. 186) divides the 1,145 Indians of the whole munic- ipio into 5d3 males and 582 females. The preponderance of males uncovered by my 1936 census is probably the result of errors. I think that when sex was doubtful, informants tended to assume the child was male. Or the error (if such there is) resulted from a careless misunderstanding: in some cases when I was told that there were two hijos in the house—and the names were not given me—I may have put them down as male children when in fact one was a female. In most cases I found out the names of people, but with infants it was often difficult and I let the matter drop; I should not have. 2 All cases in which information on sex is lacking fall into the infant class; all are probahly under 2 years of age. It would be possible from municipal birth records to determine the exact age of most of the Indians. This long and laborious task was not attempted, although the method is obviously superior and more exact than the indirect one employed. TABLE 3.—Population by age, sex, and class “Chil- a “Infants”’ dren” |‘‘Adults’’ Total under 4 years} 4-15 over 15 years E =] 2|s ie 2 2 La } s A os i=] a C4 SlelFlale/F/a/2|8/2|& elalelD (ale (OD l/ale] a] a Panajachelefio_-_-------- 688 |351 |331 | 6 | 49 | 36] 6 | 75 | 55 |227 | 240 orelen '2. <.-22252s--ss= 92 | 39 | 53 |_-.-| 6 9 }isa2}) 5: 12, |} .28. 32 pROGHl cesses neon 780 |390 |384 6 | 55 | 45 6 | 80 | 67 |255 | 272 1Including foreign domestics in Panajachel households, but not foreign Indians married into them. The 780 Indians lived, in 1936, in 157 house- holds; of these, 134 were Panajachelefio and 23 foreign. The average number of persons per household was, therefore, 4.9, the Panajachelefios averaging 5.1 and the foreign Indians, 4.0. Table 4 shows the actual distribution of households by size. (The reason that 4 households are shown to contain half-persons is that there were two biga- mous men who divided their time between two households each. For many purposes below these dual households are combined, and the total number considered to be 132 rather than 134.) The foreign Indians live for the most part on the side of town west of the river; 21 of the 23 foreign households, containing 79 of the 86 foreign Indians, were located on the west side in 1936; and, besides, 21 of the 36 foreigners married into Panajachelefiio families lived west. In 1940 there were no foreign families on the east side: one of the two had left Panajachel, and the other had moved to the other side. The households of the foreign Indians, who are cut off from their relatives, contain for the most part simple families (parents and children); but the composition of Panajachelefio households varies greatly. Only 83 of them were counted as “simple,” and that number includes 17 in which there were step-relatives and half-siblings. Of the remainder, 36 may be considered natural extensions of simple families, containing in addi- tion married children and/or their offspring. Finally, there were 15 households which included additional relatives, most often the siblings of the parents. There is some tendency in the families toward patrilocality: for every case in which there was a son-in-law living in the household, there were two cases in which there was a daughter-in-law instead or in addition. But all such cases together num- bered but 27. Most young people set up inde- pendent establishments soon after marriage. TaBLE 4.—Distribution of Indians by households ! Number of households Number of persons Bae ae ; anaja- oreign pol chelenos? | Indians ae | te a ee er ae 1 Woeeaaeaceee 1}4_ 1 i 2. _ 14 8 ae 33 28 338. a 1 i 25 20 5_- 24 19 6 24 23 nite 11 11 Ths. 2 2 8. gu 10 9. 6 5 10_- 3 3 ab 2 2 ARG A ae eee 157 134 23 1 This table is based on a household census, checked and rechecked in @ number of ways. It is probably not 100-percent accurate because during the months that elapsed in the gathering of the data, changes were continuously occurring (births, deaths, changes of residence with marriage, etc.) and it is difficult to know whether the picture is correct for any point of time. The attempt was to get all of the dats as of May 1, 1936, but since the last doubt was not resolved until 18 months after that, it is obvious that it may not have succeeded. 2 Not counting foreign servants as members of the households. 10 THE PLACE AND THE PEOPLE There was in 1936 only one household in which an unrelated person, a man, lived with the family; but there were four families with domestics and hired hands, all of them foreign Indians in the service of Panajachelejios. Although there are evidences that in generations past there was some kind of kinship or local unit consisting of more than one household, today the household is the only functioning social entity within the community. True, familial relations that cut across households in bilateral kinship lines are recognized by formal visiting and gift giving, as are also god-parental relationships; but they do not crystallize into social segments. The only effective social segment is the individual household, whatever its constitution. That this is so can be most clearly seen in the light of the politico-religious organization. Like the other municipos of Guatemala, all of which are from the point of view of the central government the smallest important administrative units, Panajachel has a series of governmental officials, some appointed and some theoretically elected. Generations back, before there were Ladinos, all officials (except a Secretary) were Indians, as they still are in other pure-Indian towns. Before 1935, when a new system was invoked, all were chosen from and by the local populace. After the Ladinos came, they were given certain of the highest offices; but the Indians continued to fill all offices unofficially from their own ranks. After 1935, when some of the offices were abolished and others became appointive from above and outside the community, the In- dians continued to name a complete roster of officials; but then fewer of them were officially recognized.’ It was still possible, however, to speak of Indian officialdom as consisting of a first alealde, second alcalde, first and second regidores, first and second regidores ayudantes, first and second auziliar, first, second, third, and fourth mayores, and 24 ungraded algquaciles. There were, thus, 36 civil offices to be filled. At the same time, there are a series of religious offices in the Indian organization, none of which is officially recognized. These are connected with the church (of which there is no resident priest) and the cult of the saints. There are the first and second fiscales, first and second sacristanes, 8 In 1944, with the revolution, the legal system changed again in the pre- 1935 direction. cofrades of each of four cofradias, and two or three graded mayordomos of each cofradia, for a total of religious officials of about 16 (in 1936, 15). The 2 classes, civil and religious, are only partially separable, however. In the system of succession in the hierarchy the Indians alternate between the 2, and all offices are graded in a single hierarchy. The Indian officials, at least insofar as the In- dians have anything to say, are neither elected nor, strictly speaking, appointed. The elders (principales, who have passed through the suc- cession) and the higher officials together choose the new officials each year; but since a person is not eligible to serve in an office until he has served in a lower one and since he is not obliged to accept an office unless he has had a period of rest after his previous service, the choice is limited, and often automatic. Holding office entails pecuniary dis- advantage, and when there is doubt as to who should get one, a poorer man can avoid it more easily than a richer man. What the system finally amounts to is that almost every man (together with his wife) gradu- ally moves up through the series of offices, but in any one year a man does not take an office unless it is his turn. The point of the relationship be- tween the family organization and the politico- religious system is that ‘‘turns’ are taken not by individuals or blood-kin groups, but by house- holds. There are some 52 offices to be filled an- nually, nearly all of them every year, and 132 Panajachel households from which to fill them, no household normally has more than 1 office- holder at a time, and after a person finishes his term no other member of his household is expected to serve for at least another year. In the same manner, contributions of money for fiestas and of labor on public works come from whole households, not individuals (i. e., a house- hold, no matter the size, might be asked to contrib- ute one man-day of labor to repair irrigation ditches). The household is therefore the primary social unit. By definition it is also an economic unit, since it includes those who live under one roof, or in one compound, and have a common kitchen. But there is lacking in both the native ideology and in family practice any complete economic community. Each member of the family tends to own property and to keep track of his own earn- ings and contributions for common needs. Never- THE PLACE AND THE PEOPLE int theless, no other segments of society even ap- proach the households in social and economic solidarity. In the household the members may be economic individualists, but they do cooperate on a noncash basis, while between even such close relatives as father and son or two brothers who live in different households, there is practically no common enterprise on a basis different from that between unrelated persons. In making this study, it was striking to find in how many ways the data had to be gathered by households rather than individuals on the one hand or family or neighborhood groups on the other. Thus, in dis- cussing marketing it was useless to try to deter- mine which individuals went to certain towns regularly, but it was easy to find out which house- holds were regularly represented by one or another individual in a given town. Likewise, in land ownership it was not difficult to discover which lots were owned and worked by a certain house- hold; but it would have required more time than we were able to give to determine which persons of the family actually owned each one. THE WAY OF LIFE When a tourist comes to Panajachel, the road takes him past the little town center where, sur- rounding a small square park, he sees the ruins of the sixteenth-century church and the drab adobe town hall, library, and jail. Driving over the cobblestones he finds the road lined for a few blocks with whitewashed adobe houses, most of which present to him a small store front and grilled windows under a red tile roof. Then for a kilometer he is out in the country, the houses spaced far apart along the road, coffee groves and open fields and garden patches between them. He arrives shortly at one of the hotels near the lake shore, from which he has a view of the broad expanse of water and the striking twin volcanoes that dwarf it. Perhaps after a trip across the lake to Atitlan, San Pedro, or San Antonio, and perhaps a stroll through the countryside near the hotel, he leaves the hotel to continue on his way. He will remember the lake, certainly. If ques- tioned he may recall that he did go through a little town called Panajachel when en route to his hotel, but that there was nothing there to attract attention. Indeed, there was not. But in most cases the tourist has not seen Panajachel. Nor have more than a few of the Indians seen the tourist, at least as more than a passing cloud of dust. The Indians live away from the highway, most of them on the other side of the river. They live in little thatched houses hidden in coffee groves. The tourist has seen, for the most part, the Ladino and Gold Coast sections. Along the roads he has seen more Indians from other towns than Indians of Panajachel. The latter he would probably not have recognized anyway, since, unlike Indians of such towns as Chichicastenango that wear unique costumes, there is little to dis- tinguish them. Yet the Panajachelefios are distinguished from all other Indians in details of costume, as well as in language, institutions, customs, and beliefs. Their economic base is different and many of the techniques in which they are proficient are foreign to inhabitants of neighboring towns. Differ as they may from each other, the norm of behavior in the community undoubtedly differs in greater or less degree from the norms of be- havior of each of the other surrounding muni- cipios. That is the way of this region of Guate- mala, and Panajachel is not the only community different from the others; for each municipio tends to have its own cultural variant, and its own economic specialties. Panajachel is no doubt less colorful than some other commu- nities; but its sociology and culture and certainly its economy is no less interesting. Panajachelefos are almost exclusively agri- cultural. The women weave part of the clothing worn; the men build the houses and make a few things like tool hafts for their owa use; the women cook raw materials into most of the food that is consumed; but that is as far as industrial technology goes, and none of its products are sold outside the community. All household utensils—pottery, grinding stones, baskets, gourds, china, and so on—and practically all household furnishings such as tables and chairs and mats, must be brought in from other towns. So must many articles of wearing apparel, such as material for skirts and cloaks, hats, sandals, blankets, and carrying bags, as well as cotton and thread for weaving the other things. So must most of the essential foodstuffs: the greater part of the corn, all lime, salt, and spices, most of the chile, and most of the meat. To buy all these essentials the Indians go to market, either 1 THE PLACE AND THE PEOPLE in neighboring Solola or in the local town center. To get the money they depend upon the sale of agricultural produce that is unimportant in their own diet and grown almost solely for the market. Onions and garlic, a number of fruits, and coffee? are the chief commodities produced for sale. To produce them consumes the great preponder- ance of the Indians’ productive time, and to take them to market consumes much of the remainder. Corn is the first essential of life to the Indian as a consumer; he thinks often in terms of his tortillas and his beans which are, in a way, his bread and butter. But his life as a producer and in business is oriented toward onions, garlic, and the other products of his truck farming. It is to them, and the prices they bring, that his fortune is tied. The Indian is perhaps above all else an entre- preneur, a business man, always looking for new means of turning a penny. If he has land enough to earn a good living by agriculture as such, he is on the lookout for new and better seeds, fertilizer, ways of planting; and always new markets. If his land is not sufficient, he begs and borrows land where he can, often paying a rental price that is, for him, high. If he must, he works as a day laborer for another. But he would rather strike a bargain of some kind; perhaps he can buy the harvest of some fruit trees to gather and sell, or buy up onion seed to take to Mixco or the capital. Even adolescent boys and girls make deals when they can, perhaps renting a piece of land and working it on their own; and young children are alert to small opportunities. Yet, although money is that which everybody tries to get more of, it is not of highest value in the culture. It alone does not bring the highest respect, although it is, among other things, a means of quickly ascending the scale of offices to become a respected principal. The richest man in town is also the first principal, and possibly the most highly respected person; but he also happens to be good and kind and religious and wise. The next-to-richest man is probably one of the most disliked, and he happens to be irritable and tactless—and suspected, as well, of having killed off, by sorcery, most of his relatives for their share of the inheritance. People seem ®§ Which is important in the diet; the Indians frequently sell their entire crop, however, and buy coffee grown elsewhere, at retail. to be respected for their personal virtues (as evaluated by the community): industry, friend- liness and amiability, willingness to share in communal duties; and in a town as small as Panajachel such virtues cannot be long simulated. Yet it cannot be gainsaid that wealth is at the least an obvious evidence of industry, and its reward. Nor is business exempted from the ordinary rules of decent behavior. People frankly try to make a living, and to get rich, but not at the expense of their self-respect; they do not ordi- narily try to cheat; a debt, unless it is secured, seems to be a moral burden; they do not, when sober, beg; when they ask a favor they bring a eift, and when they do a favor they do not ordi- narily accept payment for it; when they receive a gift they return a gift. Loss of face is probably worse for most people than loss of money; a man may stay in the house for days at a time because he is ashamed to face his townsmen. This is a study of the economy of a group of people who by our standards live in the most primitive condition. Their houses have no floors or windows and are filled with smoke from the open fire. They are often in rags. Their diet has few luxuries, and hardly a person is fatter than thin. A newborn baby’s chance for life is something less than good, and with medical care at a minimum, life is always precarious. A few dollars’ capital can, with hard work and good fortune, be run up into what is, according to local standards, a tidy nest egg. But the accumulation of years can dis- appear with one prolonged sickness, or one spell of drinking, or the acceptance of a public office at an inopportune time. With good luck and hard work a poor family can in a generation become a rich family; but the largest fortune can as quickly be frittered away. The community as a whole is not poor. At least it is able to indulge in luxuries beyond the needs of food, clothing, and shelter. It sup- ports a rather elaborate ritual organization requiring the expenditure not only of time but of money, especially for liquor. It allows people to go to festivals and to markets even when these serve no commercial needs. It sustains a no-\ork-in-the-fields Sabbath and a number of holidays. It permits its youth their fashion fripperies. All this in the face of perfect knowledge that time is money and so, definitely, is a penny. TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMY 13 But the Indians work for such luxuries. Rich and poor, men, women, and children, bend over the soil or under their burdens from morning to night; and when it is too dark to work they go to sleep. There is ordinarily no fireside hour, no roistering in the evening. If there is any fun in workaday life, it must be in the work itself. Or perhaps the Indians derive satisfactions from the well of inner life that is a heritage of their culture. For while in their ways and means of getting along with nature and with each other they are not so different from ourselves, their view of the world about them—the sun and the earth, the heart and the soul, plants and animals, God and the Devil, butchers and bakers, life and death—is not only different from ours, and naive and picturesque, but is a coherent whole that may well be as satisfying as it is self-explanatory. If the Indians are on the whole a cheerful lot, TECHNOLOGY THE KIND OF ECONOMY The Indians of Panajachel, and the people among whom they live and with whom they do almost all of their business, are part of what may be characterized as a@ money economy organized in single households as both consumption and produc- tion units, with a strongly developed market which tends to be perfectly competitive. Although as consumers the Indians enter, in minor ways, into the world economy of firms—for many years, for example, they purchased matches manufactured by a monopoly granted the Krueger interests—their production is accomplished quite strictly on a “household” rather than a “firm’’ basis..°. The producing unit is the simple family; 10 Following a suggestion of my colleague Bert F. Hoselitz (to whom I am much indebted for advice on this section), I am using the terminology of Oscar Lange (1945-46, pp. 19-32) who distinguishes as ‘‘units of economic decision’”’ households, whose decisions by definition have the objective of Satisfying consumption wants of the unit, from firms, whose objects are money profits, and says that “‘The economic organization that leaves production to firms is called capitalism.’ By this definition the title of this book appears to bea misnomer. However, Lange goes on to point out not only that firms have “nonrational” ends but that households may be “‘rational’’ in maxi- mizing the magnitude of utility, as I believe that those of Panajachel tend to do, and he adds (p. 31) that there seems ‘‘to be some difference between households operating in the capitalist economy and households of the domes- tic economy of pre-capitalist societies. The dominance of business enter- prises with a tangible and quantified magnitude (money profit) as their objective has created a mental habit of considering all kinds of decisions as & pursuit of a single objective, expressed as a magnitude. Some authors call this mental habit the ‘capitalist spirit.’ It spreads beyond the specific decisions of business enterprises and affects the mode of operation of other units, including households. Under the influence of the mental habit however, it is neither because they are satisfied nor because the course of life runs smooth. Ambition, a desire for the security and prestige that more land will allow, seems to be a generous current flowing through Indian life. Worry, with both health and fortune so tenuous, can never be long absent. But beyond the recurring major eriefs and sorrows, perhaps the most persistent obstacles to peace of mind are the continued vexations of social life: fear, envy, fear of envy; rumors, slander, gossip, fear of gossip; quarrels; insults; faithlessness; ridicule; enemies. Passions are close to the surface and continually running over into words that feed them. Within the family, between lovers, among neighbors—any day some little thing may send one scurrying to the courthouse for redress and revenge. The community is rich enough to support that, too. AND ECONOMY there are no factories, no estates, no cooperatives. But because of the regional specialization of labor, it is also very strongly a market economy. In many, if not most, communities, a large proportion of what is consumed has to be purchased. The chief products of Panajachel, for example, are onions, garlic, and fruit produced almost entirely for sale, while the staples of the diet—corn, beans, peppers, salt, meat, bread—and the clothing or the materials from which it is made, and almost all tools and utensils, must be purchased. All business is done on a money basis; barter almost does not exist. Moreover, almost all of it is done on a cash basis. It is possible to borrow money, at interest, in various ways; but although lending may sometimes become a business (and Ladinos may earn part of their living from the proceeds) credit institutions are undeveloped. 2 cases, less than half pepinos. © 1 case, beans all year; others, beans followed by more onions. 41 case, also vegetables. ¢1 case, milpa only every second year. ‘1 case, beans on all the land part of year. £1 case, 2 pieces of land changed off. b 3 cases, garlic land idle after harvest; others, onions fill in the year. ‘1 case, beans all year; in others, the land rented from Ladinos for only the bean season. 12 cases, part of land idle. * 1 caso, less than half pepinos. m Land idle after garlic harvest. » In 1 case there is an onions-milpa sequence and in another case a beans- milpa Sequence replacing the garlic-milpa sequence every third year; in these cases pepinos are grown only every third year. ° 1 case, only 1 of the 3 crops (beans, garlic, or onions) grown in a year, and each one every third year. 3 » I case, peptnos grown consecutive years, producing no crop the third year. that is planted, and also in the delta where for the growing season it is permitted to displace other truck crops. The growing season is about 8 months, from May through December, including the 6 months of the rainy season and the first 2 months or so of the dry season, during which the ears ripen. The tools used in milpa agriculture are the ax, machete, occasionally the pickax, a wooden har- vesting nail, and above all others the hoe. Neither plows nor draught animals are ever used. Trees need rarely be felled in preparation, so axes are much Jess used than machetes (imported, broad- bladed knives some 18 inches long with 6-inch handles), used to cut small trees, bushes, and brush. The hoe is used not only to turn over and break up the soil, but also to chop away and scrape off undergrowth of all kinds. Typical is the broad-bladed hoe; but for some purposes a hoe with a small blade (once a large one, worn down by use) is employed. No fertilizer from outside the field is normally added. Exceptionally animals graze on hillside land between crops and while it lies fallow; other- wise fertilizer is never added, although after the harvest the cornstalks and leaves are allowed to rot, or are gathered and burned to enrich the soil. Delta land, used the year-round, is fertilized, but not especially for milpa; it is planted with one crop or another year after year without becoming exhausted. Hillside land presumably dees become exhausted; it is then allowed to lie fallow for a number of years, during which wild vegetation grows, to be cut and burned when use of the land is resumed. Such land is called ‘new land’’; it may remain fallow so long that many forget that it was ever cultivated. I cannot say for how long land may be uninterruptedly planted with milpa and still produce a crop. Indians talk about “tired” vs. “fresh” or ‘‘new”’ land, and differences in yields between the two; the criterion for ‘‘ex- haustion” (i. e., at what point a field would not be considered worth planting again) is not clear. The life of land depends in part on its inclination; the more level the land, the longer it can be used. I have cases of gentler slopes which produced profitable crops after 12, 15, and 25 years of con- tinued planting. This contrasts with a piece on a steep hillside that had been planted for “about 10 years” and given up to rest because exhausted, to remain unplanted for “about 6 years.” THE LAND 49 On new land in the hills, the trees and brush are cut away with machetes during March and early April, and burned over during the last of April, when it is ready for planting. On land used the year before, the soil is thoroughly hoed and the weeds and old cornstalks piled and burned. Ashes are thought to be good fertilizer. Seed has been kept on the ear from the year before, carefully selected by picking over. Seeds from the same piece of land are usually planted each year, for each altitude and region has its appropri- ate variety. After the first rains of May, a number of men plant together, each with a small- bladed hoe and a small bag in which the seed is carried. A 6-inch hole is dug with the hoe and five or six seeds are carefully placed in it, after which the hole is covered over with the hoe and the earth patted down. Every fifth or sixth plant, chosen so they will not form rows, is planted also with three or four beans. 7° Squash are planted (between the corn plants) only after the corn is up. On a slope, planting is begun at the top, and the rows follow the contour lines, apart either a vara and a half (4.1 feet) or a vara and three-quarters (4.8 feet), apparently depending on the practice of the farmer rather than on the type of soil. The distance between plants in a row is the same as between rows. Some Indians say that on new land, known to be richer, the distances are reduced by a foot, but the few data I have do not seem to bear this out. I have seen corn growing on slopes as steep as about 45°. In irregular fields, odd niches of soil are utilized simply by planting as many stalks as the space permits; no land is ordinarily neglected if it can be planted. Until the seed sprouts, at least, the fields are carefully guarded against grackles, mice, ete. Scarecrows and traps of various kinds are used; but children are frequently on the field a good part of the time. Seeds which do not sprout are replaced. After the danger of small animals is past, the milpa need be visited only every few days. The field is usually cultivated twice, sometimes three times: when the plants are about a yard high, the field is weeded and the earth hilled around each plant to a height of about a foot; then with the second weed- 29 There is no fixed plan for the distribution of cornand beans. The planter actually places about 2 pounds of corn and a half pound of beans (for a cuerda— 0.178 acre) in his bag and draws out a handful for planting. If there happen to be less than five or more than six kernels of corn, he makes a correction. If there are one, two, or three beans, he plants them—provided that he has not planted beans in the immediate vicinity. What goes into each hole, is therefore, partly a matter of chance. ing (when the “points”? begin to form on the plants) the mound is built to about a foot and a half; at the same time the leaves of the bottom of the stalks are often cut away. Like the planting, each cultivation is done by a group of men with hoes. When the ears are formed, some are usually picked for eating or sale and the leaves around them cut for use. When the ears are fairly ripe, the tops of the stalks may be cut off for use as fodder. Now in delta fields the stalks are nicked above the middle and the tops bent over so that the ears point downward. The tall corn in the delta is particularly vulnerable to wind; the reason given for ‘doubling’ it, however, is that it protects the ears from the birds and the last rains which otherwise rot the grain. While the grain ripens, the field is especially protected from the larger animals: deadfall traps are used. In December, the men harvest, again work in groups, each with his shoulder bag, a large mesh bag,*° and a harvesting nail, a 6- to 8-inch hard- wood or bone spike with which he separates the ear from the husk to remove the bare ear. Large ears are taken with the husk. Harvesting begins at the upper edge of a hill so that ears that fall can be retrieved later (the poor later are permitted to glean anything left). The harvesters carry the corn back at noon and at night, emptying the bags in the courtyard of the house where the ears dry for several days before being stacked on the ear in the granary. Practically every part of the corn plant, from the stalks to the silk, has important uses which need not be detailed here. Of course the grain itself is the basic food staple. CORN YIELDS The corn yield varies not only from year to year but with differing terrain and soil fertility, hence also on the length of time the land has been in use. Indians ordinarily report their harvest in number of bags whose content varies with their size and, since they are filled with whole ears, with the quantity of grain on an ear of given size. Since the land harvested is also not exactly measured, it is little wonder that official statistics (not themselves too carefully gathered) should 30 Made of maguey fiber in towns outside of Panajachel, and bought in the markets. The bags are closed at both ends by means of drawstrings. They differ in size, depending on the number of meshes and the size of each. According to informants, those most commonly used in Panajachel are of meshes 50 by 10 or 50 by 9. Some are 40 by 10 and 36 by 12. One informant uses bags of 56 by 12, but he says these are uncommon. 50 THE LAND be unreliable. Production of corn in the Depart- ment of Sololé in 1935-36 was officially esti- mated at 62,249 hundredweight on 4,694 man- zanas of cultivated land,”' or about 13.7 bushels per acre, next year at 136,484 hundredweight on 5,952 manzanas, or 23.6 bushels per acre. f a i y ay / y, y f f PANAJACHEL LAND QO 132" er 36 1 Fessss)Resioent | ACRE Bones] INDIAN AGSENTEE INDIAN Sg SENT: SS esi- 5 ENT LADINO 5 Map 6.—Land ownership. | LAND OWNERSHIP AND PRACTICES 59 and in the only case where such disputed land is utilized agriculturally, the ‘owner’ is required to ask permission of the authorities to plant his cornfield. In one case a claimant actually in- cluded about 300 feet of the rocky hill base in the deed of land that he sold, but since the land is worthless, the minor dispute that arose was, and appears to remain, purely academic. Never- theless, most people seem to think that this dis- puted strip has individual owners, and for prac- tical purposes it has. On map 6, and in most of the following discussion, this land is therefore treated as if it were privately owned. Chart 5 separates private from public land, as classified above. About 23 percent of the land is publically owned, or 19 percent not counting that which is privately claimed and used. Almost DELTA HILL Privately Fe Privatel = Communal i Owned ie Crmcd. Land Roads, ZY River Bed peg Buildings, Etc. = 20 Acres — Cuart 5.—Land ownership. 26 percent of delta land has no private owners; 21 percent of hill land is communally owned or claimed, but the undisputed (and agriculturally useless) part constitutes but 15 percent of all hill lands. Of the public lands of the delta, 87 percent consists of the sterile river bed. Of the remainder, most (65 percent) is taken up by streets and roads and the smaller portions by irrigation ditches (20 percent) and public buildings, the plaza, and the cemetery (15 percent). PRIVATELY OWNED LAND Chart 6 shows graphically how the privately owned and claimed land of the area studied was dis- tributed in 1936 * among Ladino and Indian land- owners, both resident in Panajachel and absentee. It shows clearly that the Ladinos own the lion’s share—so much so that even the absentee Ladino landowners own a third more than all the Indians combined. This is a fact of importance, for the Indians of Panajachel depend upon the land almost exclusively for their living, and they con- stitute more than two-thirds of the resident population. Nor is this the whole picture of the disparity, for the Ladinos to an extent not at all approached by the Indians own land outside the area studied. At least eight resident Ladino families have large landholdings not included in this study; indeed, the acreage of lands outside owned by local Ladinos is far greater than the entire area of Panajachel studied. (Probably all the absentee Ladino owners own more land in other places.) On the other hand, the resident Indians own relatively few acres of land outside of Panajachel. (Again absentee Indian land- owners no doubt have larger holdings elsewhere.) In the area studied, however, the disparities are not as great as the gross figures would indicate, 44 Unlike crop distributions, which can be observed, ownership informa- tion must come from informants. On the original work map, made in 1936 with a scale of 40 inches to a mile, land boundaries were plotted as exactly as possible, with the help of several native informants. In 1940 independent information on the size of Indian lots was obtained from informants and com- pared with corresponding data taken from map measurements. At the same time, the base map was corrected to conform to Dr. MeBryde’s findings, and the land boundaries—now corrected in some instances to conform to informants’ statements—plotted again on the new base. The map was then rechecked on the ground, and with Ladino estimates of the size of Ladino plots. Most inconsistencies were ironed out so that, finally, the sum of the extensions of the lots of 2 given small area as given by informants, about equaled the extension of that area as measured on the map. This was con- sidered a final check on the accuracy of the individual land boundaries as plotted on the map. The sizes of resident Indian holdings are probably more accurate than those of the other classes, however, for only for resident Indians was the information of informants obtained entirely independently of the original and corrected maps. 60 LAND OWNERSHIP AND PRACTICES aa Absentee Indian fy Absentee Ladino fy Resident Indian Resident Ladino Cuart 6.—Distribution of privately owned land. for Indians own a greater share of the more yal- ueble delta lands. They own only 18.7 percent of all land, but 37.2 percent of delta land. For resident Indians the figures are 16.2 and 30.5 percent. The Ladino advantage is far greater in the least valuable lands than in the most valuable, and the rule continues to hold as one analyzes the delta lands alone: the Ladinos have progres- sively larger proportions of coffee, milpa, and pas- ture land, and a smaller proportion of the inten- sively cultivated lands. high-income-producing — truck Absentee Ladino holdings are not nearly as val- uable as the gross acreage figures would indicate. Not only are they primarily (89 percent) on the hillsides as opposed to the delta but three-fifths of the total (actually one large piece) is located on the nearly sterile west hill. In the delta as well, the absentee Ladinos make less productive use of their land, agriculturally, than do the resident Ladinos, or, for that matter, than any other class (chart 7). Almost one-fourth of their land (as compared with 12 percent of that of resident Ladinos) is idle or occupied by buildings, includ- ing the chapel quarters of the American mission- aries and the houses and gardens of outsiders who maintain vacation homes here. On the other hand, absentee Ladinos devote a larger proportion of their tilled land to truck and coffee than do the resident Ladinos, chiefly because they own con- siderable lake-shore land especially suited to truck farming, including a large experimental farm and orchard owned by a foreigner. With their high proportion of coffee to truck crops, with their truck land rented to Indians, and the remainder disproportionately planted to corn, it has beenshown that Ladinos cultivate their land less intensively than do the Indians, probably because (1) they have more land to cultivate; (2) they have other sources of income, hence less need to make the most out of their soil; and (3) since they require more hired labor than do the Indians, they find intensive cultivation both more difficult and less profitable than do the Indians. Land owned by Indians, as compared with that of Ladinos, exists in very small parcels. Hill lots are much larger than delta lots, but in hill and delta alike Ladino parcels are fewer and larger than Indian * (chart 8). Likewise delta lots of the west side are consistently larger than those of the east. This is so despite the fact that 111 of 157 Ladino delta lots (71 percent) and 192 of 325 Indian (59 pereent) are on the west side. Nevertheless, one reason is that the east side is where most resident Indians live and own land, and it has long been cut and recut by inheritance. The Ladino land of the east delta is in relatively 45 Fifteen of the total of five hundred and seventeen lots extend from the delta onto the hill and for purposes of this chart are called two, one a delta lot and the other a hill lot. The case of an absentee Ladino hill lot of 215 acres hides the fact that most parcels of land owned by resident Ladinos are larger than those of the absentee owners. The number of Ladino hill lots (21) is too small for statistical treatment. The fact remains despite some exceptions, however, that Ladino lots are much larger than Indian lots and that hill lots are very much larger than delta lots. LAND OWNERSHIP AND PRACTICES small parcels because much of it was acquired by the foreclosure and purchase of Indian plots. It will be recalled, also, that the land of the east delta has been in intensive use for a longer time, and was thus valuable at a time when (like the hill lands today) much land of the west side was not producing or was less intensively cultivated.® It is seen in chart 9 that the average of 47 resident Ladinos who own Panajachel land owns 46 As late as 1894 (Maudslay, 1899, photograph) the river passed through what is now the west side of the delta. The land of the west side is still stony; no doubt much of it has only recently come into production. 100 . Fi ano Hope ee aan b1 8}; times as much land as the average of the 127 resident Indian landowners, but the disparity is only 5 to 1 if the question concerns owners of delta land alone (45 Ladinos, 127 Indians). When only resident owners of coffee and truck lands (34 Ladinos, 126 Indians) are considered the dis- parity is again slightly larger not because Ladinos own a larger proportion of such land, but because they are few in number. In general the disparity in average landholdings of absentee owners (for all land, 30 Ladinos and 32 Indians; delta land, 25 and 32; and coffee-truck land, 12 and 32) follows 6 = = ielheg pot stiatt seuaenae ~~ a Resident LADINO ry ioacres | (UE) EEE Truck Coffee Milva Yj Yyy lL) Resident _ Abs. INDIAN Ui) (J Bldgs. Nothing Pasture Cuartr 7.—Delta land use. 62 LAND OWNERSHIP AND PRACTICES the same pattern, but residents who own land in Panajachel own more each than absentee land- lords. Neither among Indians nor Ladinos is the land equally distributed. In each class a few families tend to own a large proportion of the land, but this is more true for Indians than for Ladinos. Chart 10 and table 10 summarize the distribution of land owned by resident Ladinos and Indians. (There is no point, of course, in discussing distri- bution of Panajachel lands among the absentee owners). It should be noted again that the data on Indian lands are more reliable than those on Ladinos. These were independently and com- pletely checked with informants, while the sizes of Ladino parcels, determined originally by map- ping to scale and measuring, were only partially verified in other ways. It will be noted that with- in each class the disparities are less in the case of delta lands than of all lands or of coffee-truck lands. LADINO OWNERS Thirty absentee Ladinos own 40 parcels of land in the area studied: one of them four pieces, two others three apiece, and three others two a BS \Z ) yy Y U3 Y 2 NG ResAbs. INDIANS LADINOS z sdaaee BRBRA es7 DELTA EAST DELTA @0, @ LE Cuart 8.—Average acreage of individual lots. apiece; the remaining 24 own one lot each. The average acreage per owner is 12.3 acres, the dis- tribution as follows: 1 owns 215 acres, all hill land. 1 owns 80 acres, all hill land. 1 owns 22 acres, 12 of which are hill land; 10, delta. 1 owns 10 acres, all hill land. 1 owns 8 acres, all delta land. 1 owns 5 acres, 3 of which are hill land; 2, delta. 1 owns 5 acres, all hill land. 1 owns 2 acres, all hill land. 5 own from 1 to 5 acres, all delta land. 17 own less than 1 acre, all delta land. TaBLE 10.—Comparison of land distributions Percentage of Panajachel land owned 20ths of population (families) All land Delta land Truck-coffee land Ladino | Indian | Ladino | Indian | Ladino | Indian Heo PPNNNWORAOINE OS PONNNSOROHPOUNWID row eee mae 8960 G10 00. po. PNWANWKWAMPEROUMOD a wet . PPE NVEW SAMAR oO tr WOOK NOSWRNNOCNAOeK ARON meen Rew Pr et Sed act ast eel ep a oats NWORUIUDSORMROUNS a ee, we TE MOR NS AN SOP ER RARMORUINWOONW a APN 9) SO Or Or 00 SO rt Gas CRONOMNHRUIDRUIOWH mon oO a i—i—) oa 100. 05 100.75 99. 6 99.7 Twenty-five persons thus own the 42-odd acres of absentee Ladino land in the delta, an average of 1.7 acres for each. The largest delta holdings are of 10 and 8 acres; six are from 1 to 5 acres each; and of the 17 who own less than an acre apiece, 4 have only house sites 0.05 to 0.13 acre each. Eleven of the absentee Ladino owners live in Guatemala City, nine in Solola, three in the Pa- cific lowlands, two in San Andrés, and one each in Quezaltenango, S. José Chacay4, Agua Escondida, and the United States. The last is the North American missionary group operating in Pana- jachel, where it owns two pieces of land. In its role as a resort Panajachel draws landowners from as far away as Guatemala City, and in recent years even from the United States. The number of such owners has increased from 1936, for which year the figures were prepared, to 1941 (when the study ended), and probably since. Because of its interest to tourists, as the most accessible spot on the lake, Ladinos of nearby towns are also invest- re et LAND OWNERSHIP AND PRACTICES 63 ing in Panajachel land. But many of the Ladino owners from such neighboring communities as Solol4 and San Andrés have long owned Pana- jachel land, especially hill land, for reasons other than the resort potentialities of the place. counted 62 Ladino A not-too-careful census LADINO ee families in 1936, besides officials, teachers, mis- sionaries, and others not permanently resident. Of these 62 families, 15 owned no Panajachel land at all, while 2 families owned 22 (and 9 families, 48) of a total of 140 lots. Including the landless families, the average of 13.6 acres per landowner RESIDENT L INDIAN if | | = 1/4 Acre = All land [| = All delta land fn = Coffee - truck (delta land) i ABSENTEE Cuart 9.—Average acreage per land-owning family. 64 LAND OWNERSHIP AND PRACTICES is reduced to 10.3 per family. But among the 21 own more than 95 percent of all Ladino hoid- landowners themseives, one family alone owns 230 ings in Panajachel. These figures inelude the acres, or 36 percent of all Ladino-owned land. less productive hill land as well as delta land; but, Eight families own 75 percent of the land, while although the order of individual owners changes Twentieths of the Population a a oes Tee ZZ, KA S = H4 =| 6) (i hen Indian , fadino Indian Ladino Indian anc / eee ALL DELTA LAND TRUCK & COFFEE LAND ONLY LAND ONLY Cnarr 10.—Distribution of land among Ladinos and Indians. (Data from table 10.) LAND OWNERSHIP AND PRACTICES 65 when delta lands alone are counted, the general picture remains pretty much the same, as seen in chart 10 and the following summary: 6 families own more than 51 percent. 12 families own almost 75 percent. 19 families own almost 90 percent. 25 families own more than 95 percent. 34 families own 99 percent, leaving 11 families owning together only 1 percent of the land, and 17 families landless. Put another way, less than 10 percent of the Ladi- nos of Panajachel own more than 50 percent of Ladino-owned delta land, while on the other end of the scale almost half of them own together but a hundredth of the total. Even less evenly distribu- ted are the very valuable coffee and truck lands of the delta, of which 5 families own almost 51 percent. 11 families own more than 76 percent. 17 families own about 91 percent. 21 families own about 95 percent, and 30 families own 99 percent, leaving 4 families owning together 1 percent, and 28 families without any. Since the Ladinos are usually only partly de- pendent upon agriculture for their living, this distribution is only a partial index of the distri- bution of wealth among them. Moreover, land owned by Ladinos outside of Panajachel are not included. Since the large landowners of Pana- jachel tend also to have other sources of income, and to own land outside of Panajachel, inclusion of additional data would probably show even greater difference in the wealth of the rich and the poor. INDIAN OWNERS It has already been pointed out (charts 6 and 7) that Indians own only 18.7 percent of all Pana- jachel land, but twice the proportion in the delta (37.2 percent), and that the proportion of Indian land in intensive cultivation is relatively great. What land they do not own probably passed from Indian into Ladino hands in the past two or three generations. This seems likely both because there were virtually no Ladinos in Panajachel before about 1850, and because they would have had little incentive to exploit such land as is found in Panajachel until coffee became a commercial crop. Probably as much as half of what Ladinos own came to them in the two decades preceding this study, which was the period of increasingly profitable coffee culture, as well as of the arrival of city families who found on the shore of the lake sites for hotels and chalets. Indeed, a good part of their land was lost by the Indians during the depression years of the thirties when they de- faulted on debts or were forced by some necessity to sell. The general rule is that transfer of land from Indian to Ladino is a one-way process: Ladinos obtain Indian land, but the reverse is rarely true.” However, at the time of study the peak of such transfers may have passed, for there was growing resistance to sell land to outsiders, and when an Indian needed money he seemed to go first to other Indians. It should not be supposed that with so much land alienated, the Indians have been reduced largely to working for Ladinos. Among compen- sating factors are (1) that the Indians are able to rent a large proportion of Ladino land; (2) the diminution of Indian holdings was accompanied by a decrease of Indian population (from 2,092 in 1893 to 1,145 in 1921 *8) as many no doubt mi- grated to plantations;* and (3) increasingly greater exploitation of and larger returns from the sale of their fruits and vegetables to the growing Ladino population. Nor does the transfer of lands to Ladinos neces- sarily mean that there are more landless Indians now than formerly, since before the land was so monopolized by Ladinos, a few rich Indians may have owned as much. Absentee owners own 13.8 percent of Indian land, and 18 percent of Indian delta land. Their proportion in intensive cultivation is higher than that of the resident Indians (their proportion in truck a third greater—sce chart 7) and they have a particular preference for onions and pepinos. All but four of the absentee Indian owners live in neighboring San Jorge, the hamlet of the muni- 47 A few cases of sales of land by Ladinos to Indians were noted. Both groups seem to follow the custom of offering land first to a previous owner, or one who owns adjoining land. Thus I have a note (November 1939) con- cerning an Indian who supposes that the Ladino owner of land formerly his did not offer it to him before others because he was presumed too poor to be able to buy it back. I had assumed this custom to be Indian until an Indian recalled that one of the ways the first Ladinos enlarged their holdings in Panajachel was by suggesting to their Indian neighbors that—to be good neighbors—they should offer land to them first. 484th Census, Part I, Guatemala, 1924, p. 186. From 1921 to 1940, the number of Indians increased again to 1,524 (5th Census, 1942, p. 222). 4¢ In some cases they probably left when for some reason they lost their lands and in others they doubtless went to plantations for other reasons and then more readily sold their Panajachel lands. In 1936-37 several Indian families freed from plantation obligations by new laws returned to Pana- jachel; but having no land, and no way of making a living, they soon left again. 66 LAND OWNERSHIP AND PRACTICES cipio of Solola that is half way up the road to the city of Solol4. Although Jorgefios and Sololatecos have almost identical language and costume, and presumably culture, San Jorge has been recognized as a separate community since the earliest recorded times.” Panajachelefios say that a Jorgefio obtained Panajachel land about a century ago; his name is known, and so are some of his descendants. He is said to have owned most of the lower west delta when it was almost uncultivated pasture land with large patches of cane. He planted vegetables on some of the land and sold or rented other parts to his compatriots for the same purpose. His descendants, some of whom live now in Panajachel and are counted as resident Indians, still own some of the land. Besides the Jorgefios, three Sololatecos and an Indian living in the hills above San Andrés own Panajachel land. The number of Jorgefo land- owners depends on the exact ownership of two of the pieces of land said by local people to be owned by “about three’ and “about eight” Jorgefio families, respectively. If the “about” is dropped, there are 28 Jorgefio owners, thus 32 absentee Indians who own a little over 31 acres of Pana- jachel land, almost 29 in the delta. The average of something under an acre compares with 12.3 acres for absentee Ladinos. In the delta the average holding of 0.9 acre compares with 1.7 acres for absentee Ladinos, 4.7 acres for resident Ladinos, and 0.9 acre for resident Indians. The average coffee-truck acreage is however relatively high (chart 9). The land of the absentee Indians in 1936 was the most intensively used in Panajachel, in most striking contrast to that of absentee Ladinos. It may be said that outside Ladinos own land in Panajachel while outside Indians have farms in Panajachel. RESIDENT INDIANS It is with the land of the resident Indian com- munity that this study is chiefly concerned. Data on resident Indian land ownership as well as population are both more complete and more accurate than on that of other classes. ® Diego de Ocafia wrote, in 1662, that the town called “San George” had been located at the lake shore until, 20 years before, {t had been destroyed by a river and had been rebuilt half way up the slope (V4squez, 1937, vol. 1, p. 191). In table 4 the number is shown as 157, but that includes the dual house- holds of two polygynous men; for purposes of land distribution, each of the dual households is better treated as one. In 1936 the 155 Indian households in Pana- jachel * owned slightly less than 200 acres of Panajachel land and about 24 acres outside the area studied. Only 127 of the 155 families owned land, however, so that the average of 1.5 acres per household is increased to almost 1.8 acres per landowning household, as compared with 10.3 and 13.6 acres, respectively, for resident Ladinos. Almost two-thirds of the landowning families own at least two parcels. Indeed, almost two- fifths of them own at least three. At the other end, 10 percent own from 5 to 15 pieces each. The parcels in the delta are usually very small— 90 percent of them under an acre (table 11)—but by purchase or inheritance the family typically accumulates several of them. Of the resident Indian lands, 6 households own almost 25 percent (chart 10 and table 10); 15 almost 50 percent; 38 about 75 percent; and 105 more than 95 percent. As with the Ladinos, 10 percent of the households own half the land, while at the other extreme more than a third of the people own less than 1 percent. Delta lands exclusively are less unequally distributed: 26 families own about 50 percent, 54 families own about 76 percent, 82 families own about 90 percent, 100 families own more than 95 percent, and 116 families about 99 percent, leaving 11 families with 1 percent and 28 landless. Tasie 11.— [Ole 1 8/35 1 3 lglé 5 Ss 17 (rg iPeuy Li ar sane? iu gave VI) Zoe 8 iT] pare Agriculture in Indi i '0n Fields 46.4%, t %, 3 &. a 2, = % ais e Pe ° 2 \% = £ a. § % fe y 2 \ Ganful Employment 32 Res All Economic Activities and _—_—_ 87.7% Commercial Production ———— 53.0% Cuart 15,—‘“‘Usable” time. building and maintenance, and cutting and bring- ing firewood, are equivalents for men, but not of course in importance. Although payment of rent is not required, men generally work for money and use the money—rather than their time—to supply household needs. Buying and selling is a major enterprise of both sexes, for men second only to agriculture and for women on a par with the making of cloth and garments. Indeed, in the context of the culture, marketing is even more significant than the pro- portion of time devoted to it, for selling the pro- duce (rather than harvesting it) is the real culmination of the cycle of agriculture, just as buying, where the prerogative of choice is most clearly enjoyed, is the beginning of social living. Practices in the hiring of labor, and the role of specialists in the society, follow a description of the more general division of labor. TABLE 19.—Time devoted lo agriculture and domestic animals by sex and age rH Total Children Kind of work man-days Men Women woder id Agriculture: Milpao.< «2.5. -soceteee sence 6, 055 5,755 100 200 Onions from seed_-_....----- 83, 105 55, 195 20, 000 8, 000 Onion seed from seed_--_----- 6, 437 5, 337 800 300 Garlic. 10, 576 5, 776 3, 300 1, 500 Beans. 4,113 3, 263 650 200 Vegetables__........--------- 1,720 1, 160 460 100 Penns noo et ates 6, 198 4, 198 1, 600 400 CONGO? eee eee 2, 144 1,714 280 150 FOF 0 | rian te enter eee eee 416 316 50 60 Motale 22 asses aon oe 1120, 854 82,714 27, 240 10, 900 Domestic animals: Ad ie tee een aa SA 70 Pigs. ccoxes sieeenenancseccms 30 Goats and sheep__....------ 100 Cattle. ._... Sa = oe ota 1, 200 Horses-muiles---------------- 150 Motel =e eke 3, 755 1, 786 419 1,550 Grand totals cece cas aes 124, S09 84, 500 27, 659 12, 450 ! From table 39; the totals are larger in chart 16, which adds 2,000 woman- days and 5,000 child-days (to take account of the extra time put in by women and children to accomplish their ‘“‘man-days’’) and subtracts the labor done by outsiders (450 from men’s, 160 women's, and 90 children’s). LABOR 89 100,000 bs se 90, 000 RS VOLS 80, 000 70,000 Legend 60, 000 Domestic Production 50, 000 eee Marketing 40, 000 OO WON Labor for SOY CER Ladinos 30, 0OG Gio 25 A | Special Occupations 20, 000 | - Z] Animal Husbandry 10,000 — Agriculture No. of 9 hr- of ane by oe 30, 000 60,000 90,000 120,000 150,000 180,000 210,000 240,000 and sex categories MEN WOMEN CHILDREN No. of 9-hr. Days Worked by Total Population Cuarr 16.—Time spent on economic activities. 90 LABOR DIVISION OF LABOR Chart 17 summarizes the sex division of labor in Indian Panajachel. Men Women Preparing soil Planting Milps growing Cultivating Harvesting Storing Graining Making beds Planting Transplanting Watering Weeding Harvesting Preparing crop Truck gardening Transplanting Binffeserawing Cleaning grove Harvesting Preparing beans Fruit Harvesting Pasturing Animal husbandry Feeding Killing Felling trees Firewood Cutting branches Gathering Building Housing Repairing Furnishings Weaving Clothing Sewing Laundering Fire making Cooking Housekeeping Grinding Dish washing Sweeping Distant markets Marketing Nearby markets Local market Large, heavy Load carrying Small, light Infants Cuart 17.—Sex division of labor in ordinary work. While only women are expected to work in the kitchen, it is not true in Panajachel that only men are supposed to work in the fields. Indeed, the only broad generalization that can be made about the sex division of labor is that men do not normally cook, carry water, spin, weave, or wash dishes and clothing; while only men do certain agricultural tasks considered too difficult for women—preparing the soil for corn, making garden beds, planting coffee bushes; and only men (using the tumpline) carry heavy loads. The ax and the hoe, and to a lesser degree the machete, are the men’s tools. Men cut down trees and turn over the earth. Women, in agri- culture, use their hands or sticks and the watering basins. ‘The work that can be done without heavy tools is done by either men or women. But it is the heaviness of the work rather than the tool that sets the pattern. Women do not lift great weights, or swing axes, picks, or hoes. They do not climb trees, or roofs. Men travel greater distances than women. A man may carry his load 50 miles to market; a woman rarely more than 5. Women work the fields in the delta, men in the hills. But this is because most of the agricultural work in the hills is heavy work connected with the milpa rather than because of their distance. The milpa, perhaps because most of the work involved is heavy, is the most typically men’s job. But there may be an element of tradition here too, as well as of distance. Domestic tasks—cooking and washing and the making of clothing—are almost exclusively women’s work. It is typical for the man to be off in the fields or on a business trip and the woman to care for the home. But women no less typically engage in agricultural work and in taking their wares for sale in the market. Ina broad sense, the women do all the kinds of work that men do, and in addition care for the house and prepare the food. They are breadwinners as well as breadmakers. The degree to which these statements are true, to which the division of labor along sex lines is fixed and unalterable, will be discussed (following the order of chart 17) after considerations of age differences. AGE DIFFERENCES A child of 2 or 3 is carried on the back of mother or, sibling, except in the house, and there is little sign of sex distinctions. By the age of 4 or 5, he is carried only on long trips. By this time cos- tume distinctions have set in: a boy dresses much like his father, a girl like her mother. Whatever the sex, however, he stays in and near the house, helping the women folk with minor errands. “Bring me a piece of firewood” the mother is apt to say to the boy or to the girl. Now also the child of either sex begins to carry and watch his younger sibling. At 6 or 7, the child frequently accompanies his parents to their delta fields, and although he plays more than he works, he is asked to help in little ways. ‘Let the water flow in the ditch,” the parent might say to a child playing in the water, and the youngster will direct the water into the proper channel with his hands. There is still little sex distinction; either girl or boy ac- LABOR 9] companies either parent to the field. A child of 8 or 9 (assuming he is not in school) still works both around the house and in the fields, caring for younger siblings, sweeping and doing other chores in the house, and helping in the fields. But now the sex distinction is more important. A boy will have a small hoe, and when in the fields will help his father make garden beds, while a girl will have a small water jar and will be sent for water for the kitchen. The boy is now home much less fre- quently than the girl; more and more he accom- panies his father to his work. The girl may still go with her father, or her mother, to the fields. But she is much more closely attached to her mother and hence to the kitchen. By now she is frequently setting up toy looms with coarse fibers. At the age of from 10 to 12 the sex division of labor is virtually complete. Now a boy will not stay home to help in the kitchen. He goes as a helper with his father to the fields; if he goes with his mother, he goes as a coworker. He does the kinds of work his father does, even if on a smaller scale. He uses the tumpline to carry small loads nearby, but when he accompanies his parents to a market outside he is more apt to carry the lunch in his bag. A girl of 10 or 12, on the other hand, no longer goes with her father to the fields; at home and in the fields she 1s under her mother’s direction. She now helps very considerably in the house. She may make the fire and is expected to be able to make coffee; of course she carries water. She also can weave small things of limited usefulness because the work is defective. She alone, and not her brother of like age, cares for the younger children and sweeps out the house. At 14 or 15 the young man is more a man than a boy. He enters his first municipal office and tends to do a man’s work. He now smokes and begins to drink. He carries medium loads with his tumpline and goes to nearby towns. He fre- quently accompanies his father or an older brother to more distant markets. He does all kinds of heavy agricultural work. The girl of similar age has not quite to the same degree reached woman’s estate. She now grinds, and can prepare the meal of the family if it is small; but her tortillas are far from perfect. If she has been taught to weave, she makes only small things, neither very speedily nor very well. But of course she now dedicates her time more and more to such tasks, while her mother is freer to work longer in the fields and to sell more frequently in the market. If the girl goes to market, as she does, it is usually in the charge of an older woman, if not her mother, who helps her. At the age of 18 e youth is a man or a woman, and may be expected to do all of the work of his sex. The young man may go alone to the most distant markets, he will work for others by the day at a man’s wage, and will carry full loads. The young woman can do every kind of house- work well, and can do the women’s work of the fields for the family or for hire. If she does not go freely to market to sell, it is only because young women should be protected from escapades. She is ready for marriage. There is normally no age limit for work. Ex- cept that sickness tends to take a greater and ereater toll of one’s time with advancing age, the old work side by side with the young, earning a living by the same means. In practice, it is rarely true that an old man works as much as a young man. If he is not enfeebled by sickness, the cus- tom of prolonged drinking acquired during his public career takes his time and saps his strength, or he has acquired sons enough to make his own hands less necessary, or has become wealthy enough to hire hands so that he himself undertakes more the direction of work than the work itself." By the time a man is old—say 60—he has usually completed all of his civil and religious obligations which were in the past a very significant expense, and now he requires less and is hence richer. By this time, too, he frequently is little interested in accumulating more land, and is apt to live off his capital. Hard and steady work is therefore fre- quently not necessary. The same may be said, in general, for women. Since women outlive men, there are more old women than there are old men. They continue to the end of their days to do the work of women, but % A rich old Indian (now deceased) who was at least 75 at the time, said in casual conversation, ‘‘I personally no longer do any work because my arms cannot stand it, but my son Rafael is the one who does everything necessary, or I send mozos and only direct them. But I still sometimes take up my ax or my hoe to do a simple task because I am ashamed to be always sitting in my house watching my (third) wife work in the fields. Sometimes I tell her to get herself mozos to clear the onion patches and other fields, but she answers me that she too is ashamed not to do anything because my children (ber step-children) and neighbors might think that she wanted me only for the advantages. And soit is that we are both ashamed todo nothing. Look now, for example, she has gone to the Solol4 market to sell and to buy the necessary things, and I remain to watch the house; but I always go out to my fields.”” 92 LABOR again they work less long and less hard. An old woman no longer has children to care for. Her eyes are frequently too bad to permit much weav- ing. There is no large family to cook for. Like men, old women tend to be ill more frequently and for longer periods, and they, too, sometimes lose time in prolonged drinking, to which their public life has habituated them. SEX DIFFERENCES Most of the ordinary work of the community is done, therefore, by men and women between the ages of about 18 and, say, 50. Older, the quantity of work diminishes, the kinds and the sex distinc- tion remain the same; younger, the kinds of work also change and the distinctions between the sexes diminish and (with young children) disappear. Since agricultural work of both women and chil- dren tends to be “light,” children’s work resembles rather women’s work than men’s. Thus women rather than men transplant onions; but one may as well read it, ‘women and children” even though more especially girls than boys. Men do less on light tasks than women because more of their time is turned to heavy tasks that they alone can do; thus the practice of youngsters, who are necessarily cut out of the heavy work, is like that of women. THE MILPA I have never heard of a woman’s helping to fell trees, clear and burn brush, hoe the soil, or any- thing else to prepare the cornfield; nor have I ever heard of a woman planting or cultivating. Women only harvest, frequently going alone to cut leaves or a few green ears, especially if the field is in the delta, when a woman even goes alone to harvest a few ripe ears. Most frequently, however, men take the lead in harvesting and women accompany them, if at all, only to assist, partly because large loads must be brought home, mainly because of a feeling that milpa is men’s work. To harvest a large field laborers are hired to join what members of the family are available, perhaps including women; ® but women are never hired, as men are, to help. Stacking corn in the granary is done by all the 5 In one case the wife and 10-year-old daughter arrived at the distant corn- field at 10 2. in. with lunch and remained the rest of the day to pick beans and gather together the cars of corn. In another case a wife and daughter did some harvesting, in a nearby field, elone, and Jater accompanied the man of the house to do more. family under the leadership of the man of the house. Removing the grain from the cob is primarily women’s work. When (infrequently in Panajachel) corn in quantity is grained by beating a bagful of ears with sticks, men do most of the work. Generally each day’s grain is taken off with the fingers before use, hence is a kitchen task of women. Nevertheless men often do this chore in idle moments around the house, and men rather than the women grain seed corn before planting. Beans are removed from the pod (usually by beating) by both men and women. TRUCK GARDENING Only men make garden beds, or pepino hills. Boys but not girls or women help the men; it may be said that this is work of males, as grinding is of females. The only other gardening tasks exclu- sive to men are planting onion seed (which evi- dently requires expertness which no women have developed), and planting pepinos, which involves carting fertilizer and making holes. Otherwise work in the truck gardens is done by both sexes, one or the other predominating in each process. Probably women plant more garlic, transplant more onions, and possibly plant more beans than do men. They certainly do more weeding as men do more watering. Men harvest more onions, garlic, and beans (which require some strength for the pulling), but women probably cut more pepinos. These differences are not matters of custom but of circumstance. Thus, men usually harvest the quantities of pepinos or green beans they take to the wholesale market and women cut those they will sell locally. But husband and wife (and others) are apt to go together both to the harvest and to the market. Onions, garlic, and vegetables are prepared for market by the whole family, with little distinction of sex. Women doubtless wash vegetables more, since in general each vendor prepares his own load for market but women help their husbands wash the larger quantities. Women go to market more frequently than men, but carry considerably less. 66 A man and wife are often found together, perhaps transplanting onions in the same garden bed. Women are frequently seen working with babies on their backs. When these cry, they are given the breast. Where there are other children, an older sibling may relieve the mother of her burden while she works, but of course the infant must remain close by to be fed. A wealthy woman may hire a nursemaid to keep the baby in the shade nearby. : LABOR 93 COFFEE Division of labor in the coffee nurseries follows the usual garden pattern. Only men transplant coffee bushes from the nursery bed, work which involves digging holes; pulling, binding, and set- ting both coffee and shade trees. Again, only men clean the grove. Both sexes harvest coffee, and women as well as men are hired for the pur- pose. In Indian groves women probably harvest more than men, for small groves are often picked over by the women and children of the house. Men exclusively use the depulping machine, women the grinding stone. Men do more than women washing and sunning the beans, especially if the quantity is large; on the other hand when the parchment is removed from the beans before use or sale, it is done on the grinding stone, by women,” and roasting and grinding coffee is women’s work, done in small quantities for daily use in connection with other kitchen work. FRUIT Planting vegetable pears and harvesting their root are peculiarly men’s tasks, involving some ritual. Otherwise the work of the “orchard’’ is little differentiated by sex. Fruit harvesting that requires climbing is done by men, but most fruit is collected by other methods, and by both sexes. Quantity is a factor: a man (perhaps helped by his wife) is apt to strip a whole tree of its fruit, but a woman usually brings down the fruit that she plans to take to market. In this work chil- dren are of special assistance. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY The few horses, cattle, sheep in town are cared for by men and boys who lead them to pasture, move them occasionally, and lead them back in the evening. Women may feed such animals at the house, but their care is the responsibility of men. Pigs and fowl, on the other hand, are the province of the women (and children) of the house. Though men may and do handle them, women generally do all the chores connected with them. ‘Chicken raising is the woman’s work; the man has nothing to do with it,” is the usual view. Pigs are killed by professional butchers, but the housewife usually kills a chicken for the table. Turkeys are killed only for fiestas, when usually 7 A 12-year-old boy was once observed helping his mother at this, but he was not grinding. men have charge of their ceremonial slaughter together with that of roosters. Men also clean and dismember the fowl used ceremonially, women those for the house. FIREWOOD Firewood in quantity is prepared by men and boys. Women never cut down trees, though they frequently chop branches into kindling. Women and children perhaps more than men, collect fag- gots in the river bed and in the fields. The distinction is between ‘‘making’’ and ‘‘collecting”’ firewood. HOUSING Building of all kinds is in the province of the men, assisted by boys. Women do not help. Materials which are not purchased are obtained generally in the hills, systematically by the men. Setting up the house is heavy work, but women do not participate even in building small structures like chicken coops, or thatching low roofs; prob- ably they lack the techniques. Nor do they mix mud for mass-adobe walls, which is neither heavy nor skilled labor. CLOTHING The little cotton spinning still done in Pana- jachel is strictly women’s work. Men rather than women twist maguey fibers for special uses, and when maguey textiles were made, the men did it as they still do in other towns. Women, never men, do weaving. Exceptions are two men who have learned a non-Indian belt-weaving tech- nique.®® A few men (no women) have also learned to make fish nets. But textiles for common use and by the usual processes are strictly in the female sphere. Men usually tailor their own cloaks from woolen cloth that they buy, though women sometimes do this for their husbands. They also repair their own clothes, especially if they are unmarried. It is no shame for a man to use a needle. Yet women do virtually all sewing done in Panajachel: they fashion the textiles that they weave (for them- selves, the menfolk, and the children) and some- 8 Once a boy of about 10 learned to weave cotton belts when his father was in prison in Solol4 and he took food to him and stayed all day; he watched the prisoners making belts and went home and began making them for sale to Ladinos. Since then he has earned a few dollars 4 year; he also has learned to make nets. 94 LABOR times tailor shirts of bought material, they also sew their own skirts (of bought material), the largest operation. They also do most of the mending. Women do virtually all the laundry, and have regular wash days. Men are ashamed to be seen washing clothes (especially young men who have no female relatives they can ask), but they do it. HOUSEKEEPING On the road men do all work necessary to sus- tain life—building fires, making coffee, cooking meat and soup, washing dishes, etc. But at home such tasks are done by the women. Cases of temporarily womanless households in which men have done their own grinding and even tortilla making are not only aberrant but provoke mirth. Women usually rise first and build the fire; a man at home might do this if his wife were ill, but rarely otherwise. Grinding and cooking are (with weaving) the most definitely women’s tasks. Such others as curing utensils, preparing leaves for tamales, washing dishes, etc., are included. Men do virtually nothing in the kitchen. Except that a cofradia house is swept by the men officials, all interiors (including Saint’s houses) are cleaned by women and children. But men and boys—not women—normally sweep the patio. Marketing is the subject of special discussion in the following sections. Briefly: Panajachel men do not patronize the local market; both women and men buy and sell in nearby markets; and usually only men go to distant markets. LOAD CARRYING Men and boys never carry loads on the head, as women and girls carry produce (in baskets) or water (in earthenware vessels). Men and boys rarely carry any other way than with the tump- line." Locally, women sometimes carry as much as 100 pounds—with the help of two others, to get the basket onto the head; the usual maximum is 50 or 75 pounds, and women carry as much as 50 pounds uphill to Solol4 or San Andrés (5 miles). The normal load of a man is roughly double that of a woman. Women (never men) carry babies on their backs in a cloth slung over a shoulder. Men do not ® There is a Totonicapefia married into the local community. Following the custom of her community, she sometimes carries with a tumpline. The local Indians were heard to remark about this. The Indian women of Pata- natic (also originally Totonicapefias) frequently bring firewood to town on their backs. ordinarily carry babies, but if a child tires on the road, and the wife is carrying an infant, her hus- band may place the child on his load. Only men (but not very many), and sometimes boys, paddle canoes. I have heard of a woman’s helping only in one extraordinary case. Women simply do not “know how.’”’ Once when an Indian brought home his corn harvest by canoe, accompanied by another man and by his mother and sister, the north wind blew them off course. “The women wanted to help, but of course they didn’t know how,” the man told me later. SUMMARY Table 20 reduces the total time distribution to hours in the day, showing how the “‘average”’ man, woman, and child spend an “‘average” of those which include every day of the year: week days, Sundays and holidays; sunny days and rainy days. It is seen that on the average a man spends 8% hours working in the fields. With less work on Sundays and during festivals, and in periods of sickness and of rain, this means that most days of the year the average man works well over 9 hours a day in Indian or Ladino fields; and with artisans, officials, and the aged in the fields much less, it is apparent that for this average to main- tain, most men actually work in the fields close to 10 hours on a normal weekday. Women, on the other hand, average 5 hours in the kitchen and in clothing manufacture and care and 2% hours in the fields. These averages are less meaningful than corresponding statements for men because relatively few women spend whole days in the fields while relatively more devote themselves more exclusively to domestic tasks. As might be expected, children of both TaBLe 20.—Average day of average Indian Hours and minutes Activity Man Woman | Child Hr. Min.| Hr. Min.| Hr. Min. = hes O2 Hunting, fishing, ete. .--2222:22---=---_ --|-=--— 02 = E Agriculture in Indian fields Se 8 03 2 38 2 39 Animal husbandry 2.2225 sese. see soe | nea Cal pees O20 | |s-s2e 16 Special occupations_-__-_-------- ea eesed 10 eases 12) cess 04 Agricultural labor for outsiders_--_.--.-----|----- 26) |\eee-2 14 tlacwos 05 Domestic and other labor for outsiders. --_-_}----- OY eee 3) /onsee 02 Domestic: production: .--2------2-....----22|----. 23 4 59 2 43 Marketing: <~ 22.5252 oh so oe Sees [seca BS |}sesee BS), ee ie. Community work___------------- aS | Se rae eee (1) See ae Personal and social-------------- See eo oe 32 1 05 1 20 Eating, sleeping, ete. __- : a), 1256 12 59 13 00 Not accounted for_____- : Seas OS seme 54 3 02 Ota): cOst ct oho de censs.s2eees|| ee 00 24 00 24 00 LABOR 95 sexes divide their time about evenly between kitchen and field. The average work time of children as they grow to adulthood undoubtedly approaches that of men and of women, respec- tively, for the average here given includes the young children who do much less work. If my information is nearly correct, the average time devoted by men, women, and children to military traming, all religious activity, fiesta celebration and Sunday and holiday rest, and the carrying on of social relations is relatively so little that even adding in the time not accounted for—which includes the idleness of young children and the aged—it amounts to but 45 minutes a day. To add to their working time substantially, there- fore, the community would need to cut the 13 hours used in sleeping, eating, and resting with meals; while on the other hand, to add greatly to their leisure time for education, recreation, or greater participation in national, social, or political life, the time devoted to making a living—if levels were to remain the same—would have to be decreased by (1) improving agricultural techniques, (2) relieving women of kitchen burdens through technological improvements, and/or (3) improving facilities for buying and selling (which might, however, reduce the recreation afforded by the market with relatively little gain in time). SPECIAL OCCUPATIONS Simple societies are usually characterized by economic homogeneity. Each family earns its living much like every other. In that respect Panajachel is simple; so of course is a community of workers in a factory, and for the same reason. Panajachel is a unit in a system where regional differentiation and local homogeneity are corre- spondingly significant. By and large, every Indian family in Panajachel earns its living in about the same way: by agriculture. This is especially true when one leaves out of account “foreign”? Indians who tend to have special occu- pations, as will be seen below. In 1936 only four of the 157 households—including Panajacheleno and foreign—did not derive their chief income from the soil; all four were households of emi- grants. As far as could be determined, only 50 other individuals engaged in any pursuit at all besides farming, farm laboring, the care of domestic animals, and the sale of agricultural produce. And most of these special occupations were of little economic importance. Thus only 3 percent of total time spent on productive tasks in 1936 was so occupied. The relative importance of each of the occupations is shown in tables 21 and 22. Table 23 shows what occupations are practiced by the 54 persons (in 50 households) with special- ties. The combinations of special occupations are frequently but not always consistent. Thus, while two men are both shamans and _blood- letters, another is a bloodletter, an animal capon- izer and a masseur, a third is a mason and a carpenter, and a woman is a midwife and child- curer, there are also such combinations as (a) TABLE 21.—Time devoted to trades, professions, and special occupations Number of 9-hour days in year Occupation Total Men Women | Children Mason-carpenter !_____.-..----.- 760 Adobe maker----_- suuceeees 25 Barber_-_____- | 5 Butcher__- 320 Baker____- 7 Netter c= oop soto sees eet eee 2 5 Canoe business _ Paes 75 Weavers ?___- E 1, 800 Restaurateurs | 500 Messenger-can iy 300 Marimba playe | 80 Flageolet-drummer - 150 Shaman 3______---_- | 118 Midwife ___---- | 275 Gren 2 = Soe. | 7 Caponizer:.=2-<2.--=2<2225-- 9 Total Mee meas ans seoe =o 4, 436 1 Masons: 2 full time, each 250 days; 2 part time, each 40 days. Carpenter: 120 days. Mason-carpenter, 60 day 2 Including only the specialized weaving of huipil figures. 3 Calculated on the basis of performance of 234 rituals, of which 60 were away from Panajachel. Time lost by drunkenness begun in performance of duty is not counted. TABLE 22.—Income from trades, professions, and special occupations Within Outside Occupations Total com- com- munity munity Mason-carpenter? 22222 a2_ tose. = 200. 00 200:00 | =.22=5 a RestauratWut-ocsen—e =o os oom a £1 | een 50. 00 Messenger-carrier-.------------- 40) 00) (22 Scenes 40.00 Marimba player__------------ 30000) 22-2. 30. 00 Flageolet-drummer- A 30. 00 15. 60 14. 40 Shaman 3_____---- aa 210.00 156. 60 53. 40 Midwife 3__ +135. 00 114.00 21.00 iGurers see 7.50 100) tees sees Caponizer _ 4.00 3.00 1.00 Total 1, 476.75 | 699. 70 777.05 1 Masons: 2 full time each $150; 2 part time each $20. Carpenter: $50. Mason-carpenter, $30. 2 Including only the specialized weaving of huipil figures; the figure of earnings includes gifts. 3 Assuming that the ceremonial food is worth $1. 96 LABOR adobe making and barbering, (6) fish-net making, baking, running a canoe business, and playing the marimba, and (c) decorative weaving and cur- ing children’s ailments. TaBLeE 23.—Persons with special occupations Number of practitioners Occupation Part time = yy SS Total time me |Noother| Combining specialty specialties ! Artisans: Masons... - 222.22. 414 (5) 22 22 le Carpenters. _--_.__.- 1b AY) eee ee 3] My Adobe makers--_____- a) |e eee ee yy Butchers, beef-__-__-_- 2 (2) A (elie Pere el (peer er Butchers, pork Be ()) eee Ye oe el ee eee Bakers.____.__. AM 6} eee eae Meee ah eee 4 arbors. - > see seecce= Ag 6b) eee |e Sere lg Netters: 2202-22527 34 ()||---a- aces 4% Weavers.__...--=.-.- G1 (8)) ee eee 49 14o4-}64+1641469 Business: Canoe renting__.___- We Coy ee noe ane 1 A Restaurateurs... -_--- 3 (3) 210. ye a Peers ere merece Messenger-freight_______- Ah) lence ance h UD pe eee sep ae Musicians: Marimba.....-.._.. Sq (4) | eo ke 3 ye [0 14 | epee i St 6) Pee ee 5 ih] eee ee poe Flageolet or ‘“‘catia’’_- Zi C2) oes een Sees eee Practitioners: 4+'M4+h+2 Ytt+}se 2 Mt+’4t+thwe 6416+t+4t+h ~- 4% My 13 1 In each fraction, the numerator indicates the number of persons practicing the occupation, and the denominator the total number of special occupations he practices. ‘The total of the column is the arithmetic sum of the fractions. 3 Indian native of some other town. 9 Female; ali not marked sre males (except in ‘total’? column where sex is not indicated). It will be noted that merchants are not included in this list. It will also be seen that some of the practitioners (notably curers) are not profes- sionals in the sense that they are paid; they are included for completeness and because they are sometimes given gifts for their favors. ARTISANS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS The two full-time masons, Totonicapefos who moved to Panajachel evidently for the purpose, work almost exclusively on Ladino and municipal jobs, either by the day or more usually on contract. Neither hes any other local source of income ard both work steadily, earning about 50 cents a day. On contract they must take into account idieness because of weather or shortage of materials or help. The carpenter without other specialty in 1936, a Pedrano who also rented land for cultivation, was too poor a craftsman to earn (chiefly from Ladinos) the 75 cents a day that a good carpenter- cabinetmaker does. The local Indian who is a part-time mason-carpenter devotes most of his time to his land. Since most Indians make their own adobes, the part-time adobe maker works almost exclu- sively for Ladinos. Like masons and carpenters, adobe makers hire laborers out of a contract price, generally $1.50 per hundred adobes. When large constructions are undertaken the Ladino contractors usually import adobe makers. The adobe maker learned the barbering trade while in military service; tourists in later years kept him very busy and prosperous, but in 1936 his cus- tomers were few. Indians come to his house on appointment for a 5-cent haircut; for whatever he can get he goes to the homes of rich foreigners. Only one Indian beef butcher (from Atitlan) followed the trade in 1936. The following year a second Atiteco opened shop. However, a local Indian owns to the trade. Before the depres- sion of the thirties cut down extravagances, he was called to butcher steers for private and cofradia Indian fiestas. The one Indian butcher competed in 1936 with a local Ladino as well as with butchers in Solol4; he usually killed but one animal a week, which he traveled to the coast to buy, which he slaughtered and butchered with the aid of a part-time (paid) assistant and of which, with the help of his wife, he processed and sold the meat, tallow, and hides. After 1936 the shop prospered, and the butcher took larger quarters and hired a full-time assistant. Of the three part-time pork butchers in the community in 1936, only one—an Indian from Mixco—practiced his trade. The other two, both local Indians (one a large landowner), knew how to butcher, but in 1936 killed no pigs. The Mixquefio only occasionally bought pigs for slaughter, and processed them and sold the meat, lard, and cracklings. The baker learned his trade from a Ladino, but he bakes only for Easter week when there are special demands for bread. Then he is at his oven day and night, making ‘‘bread’”’ (we would call it coffee cake) of materials (including firewood) furnished by the customers. The same man learned to make fish nets from a local Ladino. He probably makes a net every 2 years or so, chiefly for his own use, of cotton thread and lead- weights which he buys. (In 1937 he was a sac- LABOR 97 ristan in the church and worked much more at it.) The same man is one of two Indians who own canoes, which they use for themselves for carrying passengers and for rent. The two canoe owners are brothers-in-law and were close friends and rivals in 1936 (but only rivals in later years) and competed with only one Ladino in this business. The first owned a $20 canoe in 1935; the next year the other bought a larger one for the same amount; not to be outdone, the first in 1937 sold land to buy a new and larger one for $35, and in 1941 was thinking of buying an outboard motor for it. Canoes are not great money makers (passage across the lake costs from 6 to 10 cents, and a canoe can be rented for 20 cents or 25 cents a day); both men depend largely on their lands for a living and happen to be well-to-do. Many women know how to weave, but only six know all the processes, and these are called upon by others at least to weave the figured design into their blouses. Six others take in ordinary weaving. One woman, from Nahuala, has a permanent restaurant in the market place; most of her clients are passing merchants. In addition, two Pana- jachelefias regularly bring coffee, tortillas, etc., to the markets, each a few hours of most days. Other women only occasionally bring cooked food to market. The one “messenger” is a very poor Indian who lost an arm several years before the time of this study, and took to carrying freight and messages between Panajachel and Solola almost every day, chiefly for the Ladinos. He was our closest neighbor for two seasons, and we came to know him well, but could never learn accurate details of his earnings from this business because we were customers. The family has a little additional income from the labor of the wife and daughter, and the man sometimes profits by transactions in fruit. The only local marimba (of the gourd type) was bought communally by four young men a year or two before the period of study. In 1937 one dropped out and the group was reorganized. it plays locally and in 1936 had at least one outside engagement, playing in the cofradias and at taverns during fiestas. Besides cash fees musicians receive liquor; they sometimes work by the hour (at 50 cents for the company), sometimes are paid by the customers in the tavern for each piece played, and sometimes they contract to play (say for a day and a night) in a cofradia for a fixed sum, with or without food. One Indian who plays the flageolet is not included in this study; he is a Panajacheleno without living relatives who is a hotel servant, owns no land or house and is not part of Indian society. Of the three listed, one plays the drum, one the cafia (a simple reed instrument), and the third both the cava and the flageolet. They play only for religious fiestas and are paid cash fees (usually 20 cents apiece for a dawn to dark day) with food and liquor. PRACTITIONERS The business affairs of shamans remain pretty much a mystery. We came to know two quite well, but both are very unreliable informants, especially on this topic. One is agreeable but evasive, the other even more agreeable and very talkative but a great braggart. Some shamanistic activities are illegal; hence there is some evasion. T could not determine how many cases they have or how much they earn from each. The work of shamans is of course irregular, and part of their compensation isin food. At least one of them has a large practice outside the local community (while the local Indians frequently call shamans from other towns) so it is difficult to get much informa- tion by indirect methods. Although in some other towns there are shamans who probably devote all their time to their profes- sion, in Panajachel all are primarily agriculturists. Some, however, have more clients than others. The 11 shamans fall into four groups according to the reputation (and hence amount of practice they have). The two top shamans probably did some- thing like a ritual a week each (this does not mean they had new cases each week) and they are the only ones who were frequently called out of town. The next three probably had practices half as extensive; the following four performed rites but once a month; and the last two were just beginning in 1936 and probably had no more than two occa- sions for practice all year. What the shaman does takes him 3 or 4 hours (almost always at night), or 7 or 8 for out-of-town cases (I have never heard of a local shaman going beyond the lake and neighboring towns). Additional time is lost by drunkenness begun at work, at least by some shamans sometimes. 98 LABOR Judging from the few cases of which I have record, the usual fee is about 50 cents for a visit or ritual, plus food that is worth about 40 cents. Liquor worth 60 cents is consumed during the ritual. Calculations on this basis of an average per man-day of 80 cents is high by local standards, but considering the nature of the work not incredibly so.” In addition to the three Indian midwives prac- ticing in Panajachel in 1936, there was a JLadina midwife who infrequently served Indians (who prefer Indian midwives). The Indian women treated Ladinas as well as Indians. Some Ladinas are delivered by the Solola physician. Of the 103 births recorded for the whole municipio, these 3 Indian midwives probably attended 80 births— 70 Indian and 10 Ladino. One probably attended some 40, the second, who had passed her prime, 30, and the third (who attended births chieiiy among her relatives and neighbors) only 10. How many cases of abortions and other ailments they served I cannot guess. The time that a midwife spends at the delivery is, of course, variable. Sometimes she is not called until the birth is imminent, but more fre- quently there is at least one consultation during pregnancy and often four or five. After the birth, she comes daily for 4 or 5 days, then two or three times more, until the 10-day lying-in period ends. Including time for the trip, and for gossip, the midwife takes about 2 hours for each ordinary call. The average at the time of birth is probably about 6 hours.” Fees are fairly uni- form. A midwife is paid either entirely in cash, with a smaller sum plus food; but the value of the food roughly makes up the difference. In the case of Indian patients who follow old customs there is an added gift of food (and liquor) pre- pared for a fiesta 20 days after the birth. The usual fee is 50 pesos (83 cents) if the child is a ™In San Pedro across the lake Rossles reports that the payment for a rite in town, which takes a maximum of 3 hours including travel to the place of the rite, is 25 cents plus food worth from 40 to 50 cents. That works out to about the same rate of pay calculated for Panajachel and is some check. It should be noted that in some cases in Panajachel when the patient was a close friend or relative, the rate was reduced—in one recorded case from 50 cents to 25 cents—or no charge was inade at all, in which case the patient simply sent a gift of food in the single such incident recorded. In one case a shaman from Santa Catarina was paid 25 cents. An informant reported that “some shamans charge $1.50 or even 33 and do not even give medicines” but it is not clear if this fee covers one visit or ritual or the entire cure. 1 T have records of only 17 cases (5 women) of the period of labor, ranging from an hour to 29 hours, with the gross average 10.5 hours; but of course the midwife is frequently not called until the last few hours of labor, boy, and 40 pesos (66 cents) if a girl;” in case of a stillbirth the fee is halved. A Ladino is usually charged a dollar because no ceremonial food is involved. My estimate is that the total received from each case varies between 41 cents (a still- birth) and $1.83 (for a male Indian birth) which would make their rate of pay 50 cents a day, high for a woman but not as high as that of a shaman. There are various curanderos, Indian and Ladino, in Panajachel. Four old women (one also a midwife) know how to cure the evil-eye in children; one of them is also expert in curing worms and a certain kind of indigestion; a fifth woman cures sore eyes. One man at the time of this study was becoming known as a bone setter and healer of bruises. More important were blood- letters; of these there were eight (all men), four of whom were also shamans and another also a masseur and caponizer. This was the only masseur in town, and his specialty was to rub down persons in the sweat bath to cure them of certain ailments. There were also at least eight Ladino women engaged by Indians to cure certain ailments. None of these curers charges a fee. The patient or his relative ‘‘asks a favor.” After the cure, however, the family sends to the curer— Indian or Ladino—a gift of food. My notes do not tell me how many such gifts are received by the Indian practitioners, but I hardly doubt that enough Indian families have a case or two of sick- ness each year for which a curer is called to make an average of two or three per curer reasonable. The two caponizers in town, one of whom has no other specialty, presumably geld most of the pigs bought for fattening, and an occasional bull as well. Hence they probably worked on forty- odd animals. The usual fee is 10 cents, to which is added refreshment, usually alcoholic. AGRICULTURAL LABOR Hands are indeed hired for such tasks as house building and load carrying, especially by Ladinos; there are also Indians who are domestic servants and (women) who hire themselves out as corn grinders to Indians as well as Ladinos. Common labor is also expended as a public service for repairmg roads and irrigation ditches, and the 72Some Indians report other prices, but most of such cases reported occurred years ago. One Indian thus reported a fee of 12 pesos (18 cents) long ago, and fees of 20 pesos (33 cents) and 40 pesos (67 cents) more recently. In 1941 another informant said the usual fee was $1 for a boy, 83 cents for a girl. LABOR 99 lower public officials perform such tasks as sweep- ing, carrying loads, and the like as part of their unpaid duties. But as might be expected in an agricultural community where there is great dis- parity in the distribution of land, by far the most significant use of hired labor is in the fields. The system of agriculture requires a great deal of hand labor, some more and some less skilled, in differing amount for different crops. Thus milpa-growing requires from 36 to 57 man-days of relatively unskilled labor per crop-acre; coffee growing a little over 50 man-days of much less skilled labor; and truck farming from 197 man- days (shrub beans) to 1,878 man-days (the onion cycle) of relatively highly skilled labor. Actually, since in the case of most truck crops the growing season is only 3 or 4 months, so that there may be three crops a year, the labor re- quired in truck farming is usually not less than about 600 man-days per year-acre, and in most cases much more. If an acre of land should be devoted to onion nursery exclusively for a year, over 7,000 man-days of labor would be devoted to it! This certainly is only a hypothetical situation, but it is evident that a farmer rich in delta land requires much more labor then he and his family alone can supply. Both Ladinos and Indians in Panajachel hire labor, and in both cases the source of this labor is both the local Indian (and in rare cases Ladino) community and neighboring communities of Indians. We shall be interested here only in (1) resident Indians who hire out to either Ladinos or other Indians, and (2) persons, Indian or Ladino, from whatever community, who are hired by re- sident Indians. Since by definition ‘‘resident Indians” do not include whatever Panajachelefios may be living and working on plantations, there are few who can be said to be full-time laborers. Since, also, Indians living and working in the local hotels— who are in virtually all cases Indians from other towns—have not been included in this study, there are few who will be counted as domestic servants. Actually, in 1936, Indians of 17 of the 157 house- holds of the Indian community fell into the classi- fication of full-time laborers and domestics (table 24). All these households were landless.” 73 They account for all but nine of the landless Indian households. Of the remaining nine (eight foreign and one Panajachelefio) five were families of full-time artisans, and one of a carpenter who also rented land. On the re- sidual three, including the Panajachelefo family, information is lacking. There are, of course, a great many more families members of which work part time for other Indians and for Ladinos. Indeed, it is probable (see pp. 195- 199) that all Indian families except those of the upper quarter in land wealth sometimes have mem- bers working on the land of others. At the same time almost all families of the land-richest half of the Indian population hire hands, regularly or occasionally. The result is that there are a num- ber of families whose members are both employ- ers and employees; these families tend to be in the second-richest quarter. TaBLE 24.—Full-time laborers Number of households Type 7 . Panaja- Total Foreign ahelene Lived in house of Ladino employer; man worked for him as permanent employe_- 9 17 2 Lived in rented or borrowed house; man sought work where he could___-_______- 6 3 3 Lived in rented house; no man; woman 8 domestic in a Ladino household __-____- 1 I eee Lived in borrowed house; no man; woman worked as domestic where she could__-- 1, | ee 1 Totals 2 soe cee poe edcSten se cbececens 7 1 6 1 In 1 case the man was also a drummer, part time; in another, the woman of the household kept a full-time restaurant, There is a considerable supply of labor from neighboring Indian communities, some of it skilled for work in truck farming, the total probably well over a hundred from Concepcién, Santa Catarina, San Jorge, Solola, Tecpdén, and other places. Some of these are regular workers attached to local Indian or Ladino employers; of such the best estimate is that 60%* are employed by Indians, many more by Ladinos. Others are transients, chiefly from Santa Catarina, who seek work (and advances on their wages) almost house to house, although of course they know who is likely to hire them at a particular season, such as for the coffee harvest. All of the outsiders together put in a total of some 730 days of work in Indian fields (500 days in coffee groves, chiefly harvesting, 185 in milpas, and 45 in truck gardens),” no large portion of the total required. 74 Based on a 1941 estimate that 20 Catarinecos and 10 or 12 Concepcioneros regularly came for the coffee harvest; 15 and 8 to 10, respectively, in Indians’ cornfields; and 4 or 5 Catarinecos in truck gardens; and on an incomplete tabulation of cases, by households, showing that some 35 Concepcioneros, 15 Catarinecos, 6 Jorgefios. 4 Sololatecos, and 2 Tepanecos were known to work for different Indians. 78 Calculated with an informant, carefully considering for which of the various processes of work in all of the local crops the outsiders are hired, and the total required in Indian lands (table 39). 100 LABOR Conversely, the local Indians hire themselves to employers outside their own community (i. e., Ladinos) for a great deal more time. Besides the 17 landless families, who worked about 4,350 days for Ladinos,” other Indians of families without much land worked occasionally in the fields of outsiders, to bring the total to about 7,500 days (table 25) chiefly in truck gardens where the local Indians have over most others the advantage of skill. (The truck-gardening Jorgefios generally hire other Jorgefios to help them.) Rosales writes (and the Indians frequently say) that “the local Indians do not like to work as laborers for Ladinos, and few of them do. They work in the fields for Ladinos only in ‘deals’ involving work-for-rent. The poor Indians prefer to look for work among richer Indians. Other Indians speak ill of those who have Ladino patrons.” This is a meaningful statement of the Indian attitude, but the statement of fact is exaggerated. In 1937 three of the four families with whom we had closest contact worked more or less regularly for Ladinos. All three are very poor, and probably not exceptional among people of their economic level who work, in general, for anybody who asks them, Ladino or Indian. Another poor Indian who in 1941 supplied infor- TaBLE 25.—Local Indian labor in Ladino fields Approximate number of 9-hour days Work Total Men Women | Children int mil paseo = 52 ce 1, 500 1,500 | 5220s | Sone In truck gardens__ 4, 000 2, 500 2,500) esen In coffee groves. .----..---------- 2, 000 500 1, 000 500 Motel: <5 o22 sec scare es 1 7,500 4, 500 2, 500 500 1 Since the Ladinos almost never work their own fields, the chief problem involved in this calculation is how much they actually depend upon Indian laborers from outside towns, and how much the local Indians do. On their 151 acres of hill milpa, 156 acres of coffee, and 26 acres of truck (on which last they grew 14.6 acres of corn, 2 of onions, 0.2 of onion seed, 3 of garlic, 1 of vine beans, and 1.6 of shrub beans), the number of man-days required, according to calculations based on Indian agriculture, were: POO a steatosis conic anemic ab kA wa cewnneauee 20, 811 Since without much doubt Ladinos are justified in their frequent plaint that Indians work more slowly and poorly for Ladinos, the total was probably nearer to 25,000 man-days. Using that figure, and a breakdown by crops, and knowing that 4 minimum of some 4,350 man-days were done by resident Indians, it is not too difficult to calculate, with some degree of security, how many more than that minimum must have been done by local Indians. 7% Based on a family-by-family analysis, using as a basis that “full time” means 300 daysa year. The figure includes work in the fields, not in domestic tasks, difficult as the distinction sometimes is with a full-time employee who Tuns errands and al] kinds of work. It includes the work of one woman, but not of an Indian “overseer” on Ladino land, since the actual labor was done by others, mation on the work he had done during the previous year (which I never got straight!) worked as much for Ladinos as for other Indians. Never- theless, the Ladinos do tend to hire Indians from other towns, especially in milpas and coffee groves, partly because of a shortage of local labor which comes because Indians do prefer to work for other Indians. LABOR PRACTICES AND WAGES Wage-work hours are normally from 7 to 12 a. m. and from 1 to 5 p. m., a 9-hour day which was the legal day during the period of study.” The Indians usually take their lunch to the fields or have it sent by a child of the house. When working for an Indian employer the laborers are generally given food in his house, if close to the fields, or else brought to or cooked in the field itself. A laborer attached to a Ladino patron sometimes complains that he is worked more than 9 hours (in one case from 5 a. m. to 7 p. m., an Indian said after he had changed employers). When working in their own fields, hours are more irregular. Sometimes the Indians water their gardens by moonlight. They frequently rise at dawn to do some of their own work before breakfast and before beginning work for an em- ployer. They rise very early to begin a journey to a market, and frequently work late the night before to prepare their loads. On the other hand, when working for themselves they not infre- quently idle part of the day. But on the average, they probably work the same 9 hours a day that is customary when working for others. The work week is 6 days. Laborers are rarely hired for Sunday work. In 1936 we needed labor for the experimental milpa that we were planting, and tried to hire men for Sunday; we found men who were willing to come on Monday, but none accepted for Sunday; as reasons they gave that (1) they needed rest and (2) it is a sin to work on Sunday: ‘‘those who do so are very niggardly and miserly and do not want to set aside even 1 day for their God.” Actually, Indians do a lot of work for themselves, if not for others, on Sunday. It is the day generally devoted to the cutting of fire- wood for the family, and gardens that need ™ It is sometimes said that working hours are from sunrise to sunset witha rest period of one-half or three-quarter hour at lunch time. During short winter days this may be close to the 7-to-5 schedule generally followed. The lunch period may be shorter than 1 hour, however, depending upon where and how it is taken. LABOR 101 watering on Sunday are watered without any hesitation. Furthermore, Sunday is the big market day in town, and people often rise early to harvest and prepare fruit and green vegetables, for market. The Indian who gave me an account of his time indicated clearly that he spent most of his early Sunday mornings cutting firewood and that he frequently watered his gardens Sunday morning or afternoon. Another Indian, from whom I took household accounts, stated flatly that every Sunday morning is devoted to bringing firewood from the hills. And of course we bad occasion to see that many Indians were watering their gardens on Sundays. ‘There is a distinction between “hard” and ‘easy’? work in the matter that may be interpreted as a difference between “‘work”’ and ‘‘chores.”” Getting firewood, water- ing gardens, preparing produce for the market are “chores” and may be done on Sunday or on holidays. But even heavy work is occasionally done on Sundays and holidays. A poor neighbor made garden beds one Sunday morning; I asked him if that were not sinful and he explained that he had worked for only a short time in the morning and that it was a necessity with him. ‘Where there’s no work to do,” he said, ‘“‘one should rest on Sun- day because it is a day of rest.” Yet later I noticed that the sons of the richest family in town spent the whole day making gardens; I chided them but obtained no response. The next day I asked an Indian friend about this, and he was not only not surprised but said, ‘‘yes, that is their day; during the week they have to work for their father.”’ Some seem to think that it is worse to work in the afternoon of a Sunday or holiday than in the morning; but others have the opposite view. Holidays especially sacred on which work is for- bidden are Epiphany (January 6), Esquipulas (January 15), Thursday, Friday, and Saturday of Holy Week, Ascension Thursday, Corpus Cristi, and the day of the local patron, San Francisco (October 4). One Indian said it is very dangerous to work on Esquipulas (and indeed a boy who cut firewood on that day in 1941 injured his leg with the ax) but said it is all right in the afternoon. Although we witnessed Indians watering their gardens during the mornings of both Holy Thurs- day and Good Friday, I doubt if any of them would do other work those days. We were told on Epiphany that it is a holiday on which no hard work is permissible; but we saw people watering gardens, and one Indian weeding, and a Ladino had hired laborers to cut coffee. An Indian friend who was that day harvesting coffee for pay said, “Oh, we are only cutting coffee; that isn’t hard work.” During the period of study, the basic rate of payment for an adult man in agricultural or any common labor was 10 pesos, the equivalent of 16% cents. Payment for the 6-day week thus came to an even dollar; for one day, 16% cents; for 2 days, 33 cents, and so on. Ladinos paid these rates without question, and Indians accepted them.” Normally an Indian would not work for less.” But some employers, to avoid labor short- ages, paid more. Laborers were paid 20 cents a day on a bridge being built in 1940; two contractors building houses at the same time also paid 20 cents. When corn was high in 1937 Rosales wrote that laborers were talking about asking wages in proportion to the cost of corn (30 cents a day), but there is no indication that they obtained any such sum. The corresponding wage for a woman hired in the fields was 8 or 10 cents; I have cases of both, but cannot explain the difference. A boy of 10 or 12 could usually be hired for 5 cents, and one of 14 or 15 for 10 cents. Very frequently, how- ever, Indians (and rarely Ladinos) hire labor for a smaller cash wage and include the day’s food— three meals—as part of the payment. A man then earns from 10 to 13 cents in cash, a woman 4 or 5 cents, and a young boy 2 or 3 cents. In two cases Indians who paid 16% without food told me they paid 10 cents with food. With one of them I calculated together the value of the food, and it came to just 7 cents (1 pound of corn, at 1% cents, a half pound of meat, worth 3 cents, a half cent each of coffee and panela). When only lunch is served the laborer, the cash wage is of course higher. Since the Indians know the value of food, 78 These rates prevailed in the Panajachel region. In Chichicastenango the day labor rate in 1935 was 8 pesos (or 13 cents) and in 1940 it had dropped to as low as 10 cents. In 19364 plantation on the coast was offering 16 cents a day plus a ration of corn and beans, and it furnished grinders to men without wives to cook for them. 79 It will be noted below that one Indian frequently worked in 1940-41 for 15 cents a day for Ladinos. He needed the work, and he was usually indebted to his employers. 8 The little information on wages paid to women hired as full-time servants shows that food is the most important element, the cash wage ranging from $1 to $3 a month. One Indian girl when she quit work in a Ladino home complained that the food was poor and she was paid nothing at all. 102 the wage usually is little different whether it is paid all in money or part in food. However, some employers are known to feed their workers well and so either pay less in cash or have a better labor supply. Thus the biggest Indian employer pays only 8 cents a day and food, but he feeds the men well “because” (according to a man who frequently works for him) ‘“‘he wants them to have strength for the hard work.” Although the local Indians are frequently paid with food, which appears to be a method preferred by the laborers, Indians from other towns are often refused work except for cash. Rosales writes (September 7, 1937) that ‘People have been coming from other towns like Santa Lucia Utatlan for a long time looking for work here. They want work with meals because food is what they are after. People here do not like to give it.’’ Twice he writes that Sololatecos came looking for work, payment to be made partly in food, but it was refused because Sololatecos are notoriously big eaters. (Rosales adds that he has observed the same.) Probably no more than 300 of the 730 man-days of outsiders are paid with food. Workers at the corn harvest usually earn more than usual in food. A fiesta spirit prevails, and not only is the work lightened with gaiety (an employer laughingly described the day’s harvest so: ‘‘We had a good time working all day, shouting back and forth; one laborer stumbled and somer- saulted twice down the hill with a bag of corn on his back!’’), but the food is better than usual. Meat is frequently included, as well as beans, bread, and coffee. Or some employers (including the richest Indian and one other that I know of) serve ordinary food; but after the harvest serve atole, or send it to the homes of the harvesters. Even when laborers are paid entirely in cash, they are served atole of the new-harvested corn at noon. During one coffee harvest a neighbor family who had been working in the fields of the richest Indian brought home quantities of food and explained that this employer does not require that they eat it there. The following is a description, by one of his laborers, of this richest Indian’s treatment of his employees. This employer is not only wealthy, but the first man of the community politically; he tends to be an old-fashioned Indian, wearing the most conservative clothing and insisting that his sons do, too. LABOR Miguel advances money to those he knows comply and they work it off when he needs help. When they do not comply, he just never gives them money again when they need it. (So I never let him down.) He warns the mozos when he advances the money that they must not disappoint him when he needs them. He alternates his mozos, calling some one week and others the next, giving them time to get their own work done. He calls them only when he has much work: otherwise only he and his sons do the work. He gives plenty of food for lunch so that the mozos have strength to work and says it is so they will have strength to work. He tells them to eat slowly and enjoy their food. He doesn’t let them work fast because then it would be done poorly. His motto is: Do little and do it well. When they are picking coffee, he keeps telling the men to do it well and slowly and without breaking the branches. If one does break a branch, Miguel reprimands him a little and in a moment is again pleasant. Often he tells them funny things, so they are always happy working. He himself and his sons work along with the mozos—and he jokes and tells them old things that he knows. His sons don’t talk when he speaks, but laugh at his jokes; and when they talk he listens and laughs; when they finish he can start again. Sometimes the mozos talk too. Miguel has the old way of talking—saying opposites; if a field is good, he says it is no good and he will lose money, etc.; if an animal is rapidly growing and fattening, he says it is not growing and he will lose the money in- vested in it. So also he tells the mozos that their work is very bad and he will never give them more money; so he talks to me, but always gives me more money. But if a mozo doesn’t understand he becomes confused and doesn’t come back. On the other hand when the work is bad, he compliments the mozo and tells him he will never lose him; but when the man asks for money Miguel says he has none. The question of wages is complicated by the fact that piece-work arrangements are frequently made. Except for work in the milpa and occasion- ally the making of tablones Indians pay exclusively by the day; but Ladinos often make other arrange- ments with Indian laborers. The unit of work, called the tarea, differs with different jobs. A tarea of firewood is a pile 2 varas high and 2 varas wide (the pieces of firewood are from a half vara to a vara in length—but this is immaterial because the labor is the same); a tarea of stones is a cone with its base 2 varas in diameter and its height the same. In the milpa—and in general with the hoe and pickax— the tarea is a cuerda, 32 varas square. The making of a tablén 323 varas is a tarea. In coffee picking, a tarea is 105 pounds of berries, and there are baskets holding that much and also half that much, so that the baskets themselves are units. In the corn harvest 3 bagfuls picked and carried home is the tarea. LABOR 103 Units for miscellaneous work are agreed upon by employer and employee. For example, a price is arranged for the felling and cutting of a certain tree; in one case in my notes an arrangement was made to haul 100 stones by canoe for 30 cents. The tarea is the amount of work that a man is expected to do in a day (except in such work as gathering stones and cutting firewood where a number of tareas make a day’s work); and when a man is hired by the day he is expected to do that amount just as, when he is hired by the tarea, he expects to do his farea in a day. Actually, how- ever, a worker by the day—unless supervised— does not always do his tarea—and that, doubtless, is why Ladinos more frequently pay by the piece. Rosales notes that an Indian hired by the day made 10 trips with firewood in each of 2 days; on the third day he was paid 1 cent a trip and by 4 p.m. had already made 15. Another time he hired Indians for the corn harvest; they did only two bags apiece the first day; the next morning he accompanied them and the four harvesters filled and transported six bags; then in the afternoon, unsupervised, they managed only four. Again he notes that he hired an Indian to fell a tree and cut it up; the pay was for the whole job, so the man started at 5 a. m. by the light of the moon and by 8 a. m. had felled and stripped the tree. An Indian who hauled stones at first worked by the day (20 cents) and then by the tarea, by which arrangement he earned 30 cents a day. Ladinos almost always pay for coffee picking by the tarea, paying 10 cents for a full basket. One Indian woman complained that she had to fill a 5-cent basket very full; she said she was also paid 8 cents for a coffee sack full. The Indians some- times bring the whole family, the women and children stripping the lower branches, the men the higher ones. The children, helping to fill the baskets, hence earn money without any special wage agreement. There is one other complexity in the wage system: laborers frequently work for less than normal wages because either they accept favors of an employer (such as living on his land) and are under obligations and lose part of their bar- gaining power, or they receive money in advance for future work. In time of need the Indian asks for, and receives, some money; no interest is involved, but it is understood that he will work off the debt when the other needs him. That time comes, and the employer asks him to work. The Indian, conscious of the favor done him, is not apt to be very demanding. Nevertheless, of course, he does not work for less than the lower figure in the pay range. The employer is usually interested more in getting labor when he needs it than in saving a few pennies in wages. Almost all labor is done on some kind of cash basis. There are three kinds of communal labor which are unpaid. First, there is the time of the political and religious officials during their periodic years of service. The only officials whose duties entail occasional manual labor, such as sweeping and running errands, are the alguaciles, who are young unmarried men. Two shifts of them work alternate fortnights; while on duty they can earn money occasionally, for private persons may ask to have them run errands for pay. Second, there are cooperative enterprises such as the annual cleaning of the irrigation ditches; each Indian family concerned is expected to furnish a man, and the Ladinos are supposed to hire men for the purpose. Occasionally there are special tasks that fall into this category; the river on a rampage may require sudden action, and the people are called to help; or people may be asked to contribute labor as well as money to repair the church. The religious officials also customarily ask Indians to carry the santos in procession, and when the wives of the officials prepare food for a fiesta they ask other women to help. In the last instance helpers are given food in return for their services. The third kind of communal labor is road work. In accordance with Federal law, every man between the ages J8 and 60 is required to work on the highway 1 week (6 days) every 6 months without pay. If he wishes, however, he may pay $1 instead of working a week. Since the rate of $1 for 6 days happens to coincide, in Panajachel, with the usual labor rate, the working class of Indians usually work and those who do not cus- tomarily work for others usually pay instead. Within a family (the group with a common kitchen, that is) work is communally done. The land is worked in common and one member of the family does not pay another to work, say, on a piece he happens to be especially interested in. But such a communal attitude stops with the simple family, the economic household. When a father and son, or siblings, live separately, they may work together, but the one whose land is 104 LABOR being worked will invariably (according to all informants, observations, and cases) pay the other at prevailing cash rates. The impoverished son of a wealthy man, for example, frequently works as a farm hand for his father as if they were not related. Another example is that of a woman who came to plant onions for her brother at 10 cents a day. However, I do not know if relations— other things being equal—work for each other more or less than do nonrelatives. Only one case of work exchange not on a cash basis came to my attention. A young Indian told me that he sometimes works for either of two friends of his, and instead of being paid for his day they work for him the following day. He told me he had never heard of other people doing this in Panajachel although he volunteered that in neighboring Santa Catarina ‘everybody does it both in the milpa and in house building.” It may be added that this informant (the poor young man of the next paragraphs) also works for cash for the same friends with whom he exchanges labor. The following account of work sequences of the above Indian is illustrative of the variety of work arrangements and wage differences in Panajachel. Felipe in April 1940, had 7 tablones (4 with pole beans and 3 with pepinos but later planted in corn) of his own; in addition his young sister had a miniature tablén which she planted and cared for. He rente’! from Ladino M. G. at 50 cents each 8 tablones (2 with pole beans, 4 with garlic, 2 with onions; when these crops were harvested the rental term was over), working off the $4 rental by cleaning 24 cuerdas of coffee land at 10 pesos each (240 pesos equal $4). He rented from Ladino A. R. for $3, 4 tablones, with pepinos; when they were harvested he did not re-rent the land. He rented 3 cuerdas (0.54 acre) of hill corn from Ladino J. F. A. for which he had to grow an equal amount for the owner. Finally, he had on pawn another 0.54 acre of hill corn in Santa Catarina. Until March 15, 1940, he was an alguacil in the town hall. During his alternate fortnights op duty he averaged about 10 cents a week carrying messages, and could work in his fields about 3 hours each morning. In his fortnights off duty he worked for Ladinos M. G. and J. F. A. at 15 cents a day; but he could not werk the first Monday of his free fortnight. Therefore, from the first of the year to March 15 he worked only about 22 days for pay. From March 16 through 19 he was in jail, to- gether with his fellow ex-alguaciles, because a pickax that had been in their charge was missing. On the 20th (Wednesday of Holy Week) all he did was make a load of firewood, and the rest of the week—holiday, of course—he did only a little work in his own fields. Then for 2 weeks (12 days) he worked on the bridge-construction job at 20 cents a day. This breught him to April 6. He quit that job to work in his own fields for 2 weeks, and they refused to hire him again at the bridge. For the next 2 weeks—until May 4—he therefore worked for J. F. A. at 15 cents a day, 6 days a week. During the whole of the following week he prepared and planted his milpa. Then he began to work again for J. F. A., culti- vating his milpa. He did 6 tareas of this, at 15 cents each; but partly because of bad weather and partly because he also did some of his own work, the job actually took 12 days, until May 25. During the next 2 weeks he cultivated his own cornfield and made tablones. But on Tuesday of the first week he went to Solola to sell, and on Friday of the second week to San Lucas. Then, on June 10 he began to work off a $1 debt owed to Indian L. 8. He worked 20 days (to and including July 2) for & cents a day, plus food. Thus he earned $1.60, but he bought from his employer one-half pound of onion seed for $1.50, so when he stopped working he still owed 90 cents. Until Wednesday, July 17, he did his own work. That day, then, he went to sell his produce in Tecpin, and returned on Friday. Each of the following 2 weeks he followed the same program, doing his own work but spending from Wednesday to Friday on selling trips to Tecpan. He was back early on Fridays, but too tired to work. On August 5 he began 2 weeks (12 days) of work for Indian E. S. at 8 cents a day, plus food. For the next 3 weeks he worked for Indian J. J.; paid 12 cents (without food) to make each tablén; it took him 18 days to make 20 of them. On the Monday following (September 9) he began 2 weeks of work for Ladino M. G. to pay for the rented land. Because of bad weather, in 9 days he did only 6 tareas of coffee-grove cleaning, at 16 cents a tarea. But when it rained he braided his garlic, and he did other chores at various times. The next week he spent his required second week working on the highway, then had 2 days in his LABOR own fields (planting vegetables) before the titular fiesta began on October 2. All he did then until Monday, the 7th, was water his gardens, cut fire- wood, and so on. That day he went with Indian L. S. to spend 2 weeks (but they returned week ends) in Cerro de Oro, across the lake, to cultivate 2.67 acres of corn that L.S. had there. It was a 12-day job because the land is very stony. He was given 8 cents a day, plus food; but because of his debt, he received in cash only 6 cents a day. Then for 3 days he worked in his own milpa and in the following 6 workdays he made 7 tablones for Ladino M. G. (at the rate of 12 cents a tablén) in part payment of the rented tablones. *! Then, All Saints’ Day holiday intervening, he celebrated on October 31 and November 1 and wound up in jail on November 2. Released on the 4th, he weeded his own vegetables on what remained of November 4, and on the 5th and 6th. The rest of that week he helped thatch Ladino J. F. A.’s house, and earned 15 cents cash each of 3 days. On the 11th, 12th, and 13th he earned 70 cents carting stones ina canoe. The next day he worked in the garden of his Indian friend L. S., and 2 days later the favor was returned; in the intervening day he did his own work. Mean- while he began to pick coffee for Ladino J. F. A. and in 2 weeks picked 30 5-cent baskets. During these same weeks, however, he earned $1.16 making tablones for an Indian (J. J.) who discounted 70 cents still owed him. Not until November 30 did he get back to his own work, and even then he worked with me in the morning; but not until December 3 did he finish picking J. F. A.’s coffee. Most of the next 3 weeks he spent making his own tablones, etc., and harvesting his milpa (on December 16-17 with the help of three laborers). The last 12 work-days of the year he spent making tablones for Indian V. L. who paid him 6 cents a day plus food. Most of the first 3 weeks of 1941 he spent picking coffee for Ladino M. G. who paid him either 13 cents or 15 cents per hundredweight—I never did get this straight. In each week there was a 1-day holiday (January 1, 6, and 15) but he worked 1 Up to this point I had to depend upon the memory of the informant and there were many mix-ups; doubtless there are inaccuracies enough in the account I present, but they give an idea of how this man’s time is spent. After this point 1 was in contact with him, and my own diary checks his statements. I took his statement independently, and I found that he tends to have a poor memory for sequences; but I was able to straighten out most Matters. 105 right through, except that on the 6th he stopped early. He collected 1,200 pounds of coffee in this period, and received all but 50 cents, which was applied on a dollar debt, in cash. The week of the 20th he devoted to his own fields, harvesting corn the first days and planting onions the last. Then during the last week of January and the first two of February he worked around the house of Ladino M. G. cutting trees for house posts, making and combing tablones and planting nursery, cutting firewood, carrying stones and adobes, fencing, helping to make a duck pond, etc. On the days he worked he earned 15 cents a day, but of the tablones he made, three were for himself and another three for his employer in lieu of rent. In between times he also did some work of his own, spending 3 or 4 days making a hard tablon. He also took a day off cutting firewood for Ladino J. F. A. Then he obtained steady work on the construc- tion of a large house, and he continued to work there at 20 cents a day to the time I took this information, on April 8th. During these weeks, when I spoke with the informant almost every evening, I could obtain a good idea of how much of his own work he could do early mornings and late afternoons. Sunday mornings he had to report for military training, but before that he almost always ‘“‘made’”’ a load of firewood. Twice he watered his gardens in- stead, and once he prepared firewood in the morn- ing and watered in the afternoon. Usually, however, he did not work Sunday afternoons. During each week he watered his gardens once or twice before going to work and sometimes in the midweek he prepared firewood in the afternoon. FREEDOM OF LABOR Chester Lloyd Jones concludes a discussion of the labor history of Guatemala, in which he shows that from early Colonial days there was virtual labor slavery in one form or other, with the statement that the more the system changes, the more it is the same thing (Jones, 1940, p. 164). He describes how the abolition of the mandamientos was followed by a system of debt peonage, which kept the highland Indians still bound to lowland plantations, and argues that the 1935 substitution of antivagrancy legislation for debt peonage had the same effect. 106 LABOR For the whole of Guatemala, I am not prepared to say more than that Jones was probably unduly pessimistic; but from the point of view of the Indians of Panajachel alone, it is evident that he was mistaken and that (1) the mandamientos worked far more hardship than did the subsequent system of debt peonage, and (2) labor became in effect quite free in Panajachel after the aboli- tion of debt peonage. The following is a brief description of the system of mandamientos from the Panajachel point of view. The system existed during the administration of Presi- dent Manuel Estrada Cabrera, and with greater force a few years before World War I and the earthquakes of 1918. After these events, the mandamientos gradually disappeared and, with the fall of Cabrera, ended. Under the mandamientos, the plantation owners of the coast, especially those who were beginning or extending opera- tions, hired Ladino or foreign contractors to find for them laborers in their own or other towns. The contractor was paid a specified sum for each laborer he was able to line up. The contractors then asked the President of the Republic for an order to obtain laborers from one or more Indian villages. This order was given the Jefe Politico of the Department, and then passed on to the alcaldes of the towns involved. The contractor then obtained a large sum of money from his employer, and this money was left at the local juzgado for advance pay- ment, at a very low rate, to the Indians, who would then be forced at a later date to work 20 or 30 days on the plantation. The loca! authorities then assigned the Indians to the task. The Indians had to comply whether they had work or not; if they objected, they were bound and taken under guard to the plantation. Sometimes a man would not yet have returned from one mandamiento, and at home there would already be an order for him to go back to a plantation. Upon his homecoming, he would then have to leave the following day while his family suffered along on the reduced wage he was earning. It was even worse when the man had a civil or religious office and still had to comply with his obligations. The laborers who came to the plantations on mandamientos were given the worst jobs, and that is one reason why some Indians decided to sell their lands in Panajachel and go to the plantations with their families to live as colonos. In the autobiography of a middle-aged Indian (taken in 1941) there is a description of how the system worked out in his family. When I was about 4 years old, my father was sent to the coast on a mandamiento. I remember that the alcalde left money on the ground in the patio and told him he had to do it. My parents were very angry. ... The next day my father went to San Andrés to bring corn for the journey, and the following day mother began to make totoposte, I recall how she ground the corn while father went to make a load of firewood. The making of the totoposte took 3 or 4 days. . In about 10 days, the alcalde returned to tell father that in a few days he would start with the others. Then father went to buy corn to make... tortillas and large tamales for the road. And early one morning he went to Tzanjuyt (where he met the others) to take the launch for Atitldn to begin his journey. Mother cried, because the money that had been left was not enough for all the corn and things—and where would the money come from for the expenses at home? She also worried that father might get sick on the coast. . . I do not remember how long father was gone that time (but a good worker usually could return in about 3 weeks). I do recall that he returned rather soon, and was very happy that he had come so quickly. . . . Mother had ready some cash from the sale of father’s crops that she had harvested, and she sent (my brother) José to buy him a drink. The next day father picked up his work where he had left off. Of course he had brought no money, having simply worked off that which had been advanced. Every few weeks he would have to go. I remember that at first he was sent, and paid, for 15 or 20 tareas at a time; but during the time I was in school, they began to demand 30 or 35 tareas. Then father took José with him; but José was too small to help much, and they were often gone a month or so at a time. Then nobody was left at home to help mother, and little work was done. Mother watered the gardens herself, and weeded and transplanted when necessary: sometimes I did a little before school in the morning, or stayed out of school for a day. ... Then when father returned he worked hard to prepare many tablones so that if he should be called away soon again, there would be something for mother to plant. This went on for the rest of father’s life. Toward the end, after José died, I used to go with father; and then when he died, I had to go, alone. . . . When the mandamientos ended, the authorities could no longer force an Indian to go to work outside, unless he owed a debt. The abuses of the ensuing system of debt peonage are very well known. Many Indians were virtually bound to planta- tions by a system of advance payments on contracts to work that were practically impossible ever to liquidate. The plantation-owners paid to so-called habilitadores commissions for supplying Indian labor from the highlands. These men, usually Ladinos or foreigners, advanced money to Indians on condition that they work off the debt on their employers’ plantations. Many Indians came to live permanently on the plantations, and others worked off their debts seasonally. Each laborer had a little book in which the employer LABOR 107 helped him to keep accounts. The Indians, almost always illiterate, were generally suspicious that they were being cheated, but there was little they could do. The following account of how the system worked from the peon’s point of view, appears in Rosales’ diary just after the system was abolished. Six strangers, who turned out to be Antofieros, slept in the Rosales portico the night of May 18, 1936. One of them asked Rosales to read him the balance of debt in his little book. When told it was 1,633 pesos ($27.22), he said that his employer was a thief, and recounted his story: His father, dead 15 years (on the plantation) had once been well-off in his village, but he gave up his properties to support his family while he went to do mandamientos; he finally took permanent employment on a plantation which was then better than living in his village. His family, together with others from San Andrés, Panajachel, Solold, and Chichicastenango thus took root in the plantation. When he died, the contracted debt was on the shoulders of his sons, and the one who was telling the story thought his sons too would have to carry the debt when he died. But “how happy we were when we learned,’’ he continued, “that the President actually had ordered our freedom, and that we would no longer have to pay off these old, old debts!’ He went on to say that for every 10 pesos received every month or so, 30 or more were entered in the account book, and they had to work even on Sundays, the debt never decreasing, only rising more and more. When the peons realized this injustice, they resolved not to take any more money. Afterward they learned that the manager received money for them biweekly from the owner, which he had pocketed and (as Rosales could see) not credited to the laborers. Now when the peons heard of the new law, they met with the owner; he told them that henceforth they owed nothing, and should continue to work. A committee of 10 of the laborers instead went to the Jefe Politico to verify the law and to see if the patron could not be made to conceal rather than burn the books, for none of them wanted to stay on the finca; they wished either to find new employers or to go home.* On May 7, 1934, the system of debt peonage was abolished by National legislation. * Effec- 82 A few days before, Rosales had heard two Indians discussing the freeing of the laborers on the plantations. One said that the unfortunate owners of the fincas are losing their money; the other replied, ‘‘No; it is right that a poor workman should be freed after working 20 years only so that his employers might sit smoking and eating well at the expense of the sweat of their work- men.” 83 Decreto Legislatiro No. 1995. I am unable to reconcile this fact with the following note, dated October 7, 1936, in Rosales’ diary: ‘‘A representative of the plantation told me that he is looking for a certain Indian here to go to the plantation to work in accordance with an agreement made in the town hall before the fiesta (of October 4) when he advanced money on 30 tareas that the Indian promised to work off. The man said he is authorized to _ sign up Indians of Panajachel, San Antonio, San Jorgé, San Andrés, Con- cepcidn, and Solol4 (not Santa Catarina ‘because Catarinecos are poor workers and are dishonest.’’) He willstay in the Highlands two months to recruit labor .... Hesays he gets a small salary plus a few cents per man that he hires.’” tive in 2 years, all such debts still outstanding were to be canceled and it would henceforth be illegal to advance a laborer more money than sufficient for his journey to the plantation. Since such a law might by itself be expected to make difficult a regular labor supply, it was immediately supplemented with the “Law of Vagrancy,’’* which obliged any person not having a trade or profession or not possessing a certain amount of cultivated land to seek employment for 100 or 150 days of the year, depending upon the amount of land owned. This law was also to take effect in 2 years. As interpreted by the Secretary of Agriculture in June of 1937 ® (a year after the law of vagrancy went into effect), the land require- ments were set up as follows: No laborer shall be considered a vagrant, nor be obliged to seek employment with another if he personally culti- vates at least three manzanas of coffee, sugar cane or tobacco, or three manzanas of maize in the warm country or four in the cold country, or four manzanas of wheat, potatoes, garden-stuffs, or any other crop in whatever zone. The laborers who cultivate less than this, but not less than ten cuerdas of twenty brazadas, are obliged to do 100 man-days of work on outside plantations. And the laborers that have no crops of their own must, in order not to be considered vagrants, do 150 man-days of labor annually in outside plantations. Three manzanas are equal to about 5.67 acres, and four manzanas to about 7.56 acres. Ten cuerdas of 20 brazadas (40 varas) are equal to about 2.78 acres. Since the Indians of Panajachel rarely possess such extensions of cultivable land, under the law virtually all of them are obliged to work for outsiders at least 100 days of the year. But since an acre of Panajachel delta land, espe- cially if in truck, requires all of the time at a man’s disposal and also earns him a tidy living on local standards, a man who owns even | acre can hardly be considered a vagrant. To facilitate enforcement, the Vagrancy Law was implemented by a law * requiring every laborer to purchase (for 2 cents) a libreto (little book) in which his employer could note the num- ber of days of labor done. The local authorities were to enforce the law through the evidence of the little books. The law took effect in May of 1936, and the books were available during the next months. When the Indians worked for Ladinos the employers entered their days; when % Decreto Legislativo No. 1996, May 8, 1934. 3s El Imparcial, Guatemala, June 16, 1937, p. 1. 8 Acuerdo of September 24, 1935. 108 THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE they worked for each other, the Intendente did so. In May of 1937 the Intendente examined the books. There were immediate difficulties: some of the Indians had no books at all; those who had begun to use them in June or July learned that they should have begun on May 15; and in general many of the Indians had not worked for others the required number of days. The Indians sought to settle matters first with the local Intendente who however wished (as they understood him) to enforce the law literally, even suggesting that only work for Ladinos could be counted. Threatened with jail, the Indians then organized a committee to call upon the Jefe Politico in Sololé. Although this official prom- ised them satisfaction, the Indians were left without a decision. Since they were subject to arrest for not having a properly certified booklet in their possession, they were impatient and resolved to call upon the President Ubico. After a series of meetings of the Principales called by the Indian officials a commission was appointed and it did see the President. For this visit, the Indians spent a day together preparing a docu- ment designed to show how on their small parcels of land local Indians were both kept busy and made their living. This document (to prepare which Rosales acted as secretary) is translated as Appendix 1; it serves both as a basis for and a summary of discussion of how the Indians use their time. The President gave to his callers from Panajachel an order to the local officials, who eventually agreed to accept a slightly smaller land-unit and to admit to their booklets labor of Indians done for one another. By 1941 it bad worked out that the Indians who had enough land to keep themselves busy were not required to work for others; and those who lacked sufficient land (and in any case would bave to seek work) could work for Ladinos or other Indians as they wished and when they pleased. Except for the bookkeeping—since most of the Indians were required by law to have certified the labor they did for others—labor was now essentially free. THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE As will be seen, the Indians do not quite measure every economic activity by its money value. But they come close. On this measure, the value of land and of effort devoted to agriculture are clearly demonstrable. Domestic animals, it will be seen, are unimportant in Panajachel because they are uneconomical. The same may be said of some crops. In this discussion it is taken for granted that since the community is near a sub- sistence level, activities which take more time are preferred to those which take less time and bring correspondingly less return; and that time not otherwise usable is economically spent even when the return is small. THE MILPA Table 26 summarizes the money returned by an acre of cornfield crops in 1936. The labor re- quired varies not only between hill and delta, but (in hill fields) between new land and land previ- ously planted; in small degree with the distance from the farmer’s home, the type of soil, the weather, and the protection afforded from maraud- ing birds and animals; and (slightly) with different practices of individual farmers and the quality of the work they demand. Yet it is relatively uni- form and knowledge of it is shared very generally in the community. The labor is reckoned in terms of tareas, each the unit of work that an able-bodied worker is expected to do in 1 work day, TABLE 26.—Cost and gross and net return per acre of milpa, 1986 Per acre Item << Hill land | Delta land Cost of crop: oe ie 118 210 08 -02 8. 59 6.12 14.00 24. 50 1520) || -2e24--2225~ 1250) [22a 150) lesvaceeeeeoe 18. 20 24. 50 9.61 18.38 1 In this and subsequent tables, the cost of labor is calculated at 163% cents per man-day. 2 Assuming that 90 percent grew on old Jand in 1936. THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 109 and close enough to enable us to translate it as 1 man-day. Table 27 sums up the number of man-davs of work that are required, on the average, for three types of fields.” Estimating that 9 out of 10 acres of hill land planted are old land—data directly bearing on the question were not ob- tained—it may be concluded that the average number of man-days required for an acre of hill milpa is about 50, as compared with the 36 re- quired to grow an acre in the delta. The cost of this labor may be definitely fixed at 16% cents a man-day, whether the farmer does his own work or whether he hires hands. Since in Panajachel a man can virtually always obtain work himself at the same rate of pay at which he hires labor, a farmer’s time has a definite cash value. The cost given in table 26 glosses over a few irregulari- ties: for example, the rich Indian who, in exchange for 1 man-day of labor, allows his regular helpers to plant a crop of beans on a cuerda (0.178 acre) of his delta land; ** or the few Indians and Ladinos TaBLE 27.—Labor required to grow 10 cuerdas of milpa Number of man-days Work process New land | Old land | Delta land Cutting trees, etc. (rosar)___________-- 20 Making fire lanes____-_-- Sieabn be Aa eee Burning fallen trees, ete___-_--_- a 2 Biobbling! (rastrojeay) oo ee ene ae oe | enna acan Cleaning (chaporrar) _-- 10 Planting ea. sosene ee 5 Replanting where needed _- 1 First cleaning (and hilling) -- 20 Second cleaning (and hilling) 20 Harvesting: - 2. - 2022-222 25. 5 Carrying home (if far)___________ 10 Stacking corn in granmary-___------ 3 mhreshing (beans. <-- -2 2222.22 .222.2 3 Total per 10 cwerdas________- aia 101 87 65 (Potaliperacre) 2 s= "2 .c--s2-- (57) (49) (36) " This and similar tables (following) are based on information of at least three careful informants and on the Report prepared for the President (Ap- pendix 1). Since the Indians were interested in showing how much work is Tequired, one might expect that they overestimated. Such is not the case, however, for on checking the figures with others I obtained from several Indians where the purpose was to figure out the profits from agriculture, 1 find that there is general agreement, and only a few cases in which the “‘offi- cial” figures are higher than those I obtained. The figures of the tables represent what a ‘“‘good worker”’ does, and what a paid laborer is expected to dc. There are, of course, variations in practice due both to efficiency and to differential soils, ete.; but they do not appear to be great. The tctals do not include time spent in guarding the milpa (usually done by children), in making traps, etc., and in visiting the fields to see that all goes well. A man-day in these tables is defined as the work done by a full-grown man in 1 working day of about 9 hours; 10 man-days of labor may be the labor of 1 man for 10 days or of 10 men for 1 day. 8% Nobody rents bear land for cash, so that it is difficult to calculate the value of this ‘‘favor’’ to the workers. Since beans are not profitably grown on irrigated land, and they also probably return something to the soil, the owner's labor costs may not actually rise by this arrangement. who allow their regular laborers the use of land, rent-free, as a matter of good will and to assure a regular labor supply. To such the cost of labor is certainly a little higher than the stipulated day wage. Compared with the cost of labor, other agricul- tural production costs are minor and on the whole unimportant. Most of the cost of seed, fertilizer leaves, poles, etc., really represent labor costs, and from the point of view of the community as a whole should be treated only as labor. However, for a comparison of the costs of various crops it is necessary in some cases to add certain items to the cost of the labor. In this case, to the cost of labor must be added the value of the seed used and also certain ceremonial expenses in connection with the harvest. The latter consist of candles and incense, frequently burned in the field during or after the harvest, and food, given or sent to the laborers who help to harvest. Since the amount of such gifts varies greatly, and since families doing their own work are free of the expense, the amounts mentioned are necessarily rough approxi- mations. The average expense for these items is smaller in delta cornfields because, since they are small, it is rarely incurred. Depending upon the distance between plants, hence partly on the quality and type of the soil, and upon weather conditions which largely deter- mine how much replanting must be done, the amount of seed sown in the cornfield probably ranges between 5 and 10 pounds per acre. The average cost of the corn seed therefore is about 10 cents an acre.** Where beans are also grown, the cost (of 3 pounds per acre) comes to some 5 cents. The value of squash seed, for from 10 to 25 plants per acre, must average about 3 cents an acre. In the estimate of the value of the pro- duce in table 26, some items of value are not taken into consideration. The green leaves removed from the plant, the cornstalks, the dried corn plant, and the cornhusks all have important uses, and are occasionally sold. 1 do not know how much income they produced in 1936. Since costs remain virtually stationary from year to year, it is apparent that the yield and the price determine the profit or loss. In 1936, with 8 Commodity prices are discussed below, and summarized in Appendix 2. % In a wide economic sphere, of course, yield and price tend to be inversely proportional; but in a community like Panajachel the relationship is not as close, and it is possible (although not usual) for a poor local yield to coincide with a low price in the country as a whole, hence in Panajachel. 110 THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE corn at 70 cents a bushel in Panajachel, any hill cornfield that yielded as little as 12 bushels of corn, and a few beans and squash, paid its cost. In the delta, only 9 bushels per acre were needed. Data on yields make it clear that from the point of view of the individual farmer, and of the com- munity as a whole, milpa was in 1936—and is in general—a paying matter. This does not take into account the value of the land, however. If hill land is rented at the usual rate of $1.41 the total cost comes to just $10, and a yield of 14 bushels of corn is needed to break even. This is a safe chance. If the contract calls for payment of half the crop (of which there were no cases in 1936) the share cropper should still do a little better than break even. If it requires the digging of holes for the planting of coffee, the farmer must harvest some 18 bushels of corn to break even; and this becomes doubtful. In 1937 some Indians contracted (and others refused) to plant coffee in the cornfield in exchange for the use of the field for milpa for the 2 or 3 years while the bushes were small. The value of the labor paid for rent under such an arrangement comes to about $9.37. If the farmer can plant corn for but 2 years, he again needs to harvest about 18 bushels a year, but if he can plant for 3 years, he need harvest but 16 or 17 bushels to break even. Such deals are not very promising. In the case of rental of delta cornfield for half the crop, the cost of labor rises to $9.18. This is not serious, for the share cropper still breaks even if he harvests 13 bushels— virtually a certainty in the delta. Thus, even when rent must be paid, it usually pays to grow corn in Panajachel. While there is no doubt that it pays to grow corn in the delta, it will be seen below that other crops pay even better, both from the point of view of furnishing the owner with more employ- ment and from the point of view of net profit. It will become apparent that if all delta truck lands were occupied with corn from May to De- cember, the Indian community as a whole would be forced into idleness and its income would be tremendously reduced. The total amount of land available is too small to permit the use as cornfield of a large proportion of delta land. TABLON CROPS It is necessarily difficult to calculate the profits from the complicated combinations of truck crops. ONIONS Onions are both the most complicated and the most important. Table 28 summarizes the costs involved, separately for seedlings, mature onions, and onion seed, all of which have their prices. The matter is complicated further because of differing practices. It is seen that the producer does best if he produces his own seed for planting, and next best if he at least grows his own seedlings for transplanting. This is because there is some net profit at each stage. There is probably considerably more variation in time required in truck farming than in the milpa; yet even here the work is pretty well standardized. The figures given in the tables on truck farming, based largely on the report to the President (Appendix 1), with corrections, represent the normal time required with the error in no case more than 10 percent. In some cases, however, they do not give a good picture of the kind of labor involved. For example, the great labor required to transplant onions is very often done by women who can do the work as well as men but whose time is usually considered only half as valuable. Women also do considerable watering; and boys and girls help. The labor required for onions, which accounts for the bulk of the cost, is summarized in table 29. The total includes the entire process of growing a cuerda (or acre) of onions, from seed to seed, including making the TABLE 28.—Cost of growing onion products (per acre) Method Item Tings | Onions | Seeds Grown from home-grown | Labor----------------- 1$237.71 |?$114.90 | ?$304.27 seed. 35. 93 4.49 4. 49 273.64 | 119.39 | 308.76 4 158. 03 |§ 108. 69 | § 298. 06 Grown from bought seed 112. 50 14.06 14, 06 (but onions and seed from home-grown seed- | Fertilizerand leaves___} 35. 20 4.40 4.40 lings). Total=2s ses ae 305.73 | 127.15 | 316.52 Grown from bought seed- | Labor-_-.---..---------]-------- 790.93 | § 293. 25 lings. Seedlings: : 2-2-5. 2 | oe 45.00 45. 00 io) <: ) SER ee eee ae 135.93 | 338.25 1 Item 1, plus 8 times item 2 of table 29, plus of total of table 30, times 1634 cents. 2 Total of table 29, leaving out item 4, plus 48 of total of table 30, times 1634 cents. 7 3 Total of table 30, plus \s of that total, times 1634 cents. 4 Item 1 plus 8 times item 2 (except last part) of table 29, times 16% cents. 6 Total of table 29 leaving out item 4, times 16% cents. 6 Total of table 30 times 1624 cents. 1 Total of items 1, 3, and the last part of item 2 of table 29, times 1634 cents. § Total of items 1, 3, and the last part of item 2 of table 29, plus total of table 30 minus first item times 16% cents. THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE Bel TABLE 29.—Labor required to grow onions from seed Man-days Item Process Per cuerda | Per acre 1 | Making beds. (On land in use, 16 per everda: on new d, 3 days additional for scraping and soaking. Assuming throughout that 44 of all garden beds are made on new land) -___- 17; 96 2 | Nursery for % of area (enough for item 3): Fertilizing 2 Sowing and covering see 2 First weeding (cleaning) 4 Second weeding (cleaning) ae . 4 Watering: daily for 45 days, every 3 days for 15 days. 50 times at 4% day each. (Assuming 44 grows in dry months) _____- v Harvesting and preparing seedlings________ 14 otal noo ae Sess aca ss se ce eee cece 23 129 3 | Growing onions from seedlings: Smoothing soil and transplanting __ 16 First weeding (cleaning) _______- 16 Second weeding (cleaning) ______ 16 Watering: Twice weekly for 4 m oe times at 34 day each. (Assuming 3% grows in dry months) _-__-_--__-._-__.___- 12 Harvesting and bunching onions___-_______ 16 Totalvcq 2 o- sswio acess eascoee. ecosewess 76 427 4 | Growing from onions enough seed for item 2 (4s of total of table 30 omitting first item) __- 5 28 POLAL 2 ote nes oS Soe oad ie oe soo ees 121 680 1 22.5 per acre. garden beds, the necessary nursery bed, and the preparation of sufficient seed for the nursery needed for the final crop of onions. This does not mean that any Indian tries to come out even with his seeds, seedlings, and onions. Since onions are bought and sold at all stages, it makes no difference. Besides the labor (and tool depreciation) the only costs entering into the onion-growing com- plex are for fertilizer and for leaves, frequently purchased from Ladinos. About 1,200 pounds of coffee-leaf fertilizer are normally used in a cuerda, or 6,740 pounds per acre, worth $3.40. The six loads of large leaves used to cover the planted seed in a nursery bed cost at the rate of TABLE 30.—Labor required in growing onion seed Man-days Work process Per Per Per tablon cuerda acre Work that has gone into growing the mature onions. 2-3) 2-0. = -a 12.7 102 574 Weeding, fertilizing the bed to go to BOOS ooo eee cee eae 2.0 16 90 Fencing (including gathering materials) _ 1.5 12 67 Flooding when seed comes-_-____________ =5 4 22 Periodic weeding and watering (14 day twice a week, 5months)_--_-_-________ 11.0 88 495 Cutting and hanging for drying_________ 2.0 16 Cleaning, weighing, packaging seed_____ 10.0 80 450 SL OtAl Sec cee eat ase eee nee eee 39.7 318 1, 788 about $1 an acre. Cornstalks used for fencing are gathered, not purchased; the value of the time involved is too small to count. The cash value of onions in Panajachel varies according to whether they are sold by the tablén, the buyer harvesting and preparing, or by the thousand or hundred, the producer preparing them for market. About 10 percent of the onions produced by resident Indians (chiefly Jorgefios) are regularly sold by the tablén. Since the dif- ference in price reflects the cost of labor in harvest- ing and is thus a difference in cost-of-production, it may for the time being be disregarded. Con- cern about the proportion of onions produced in different seasons, when the prices are different, likewise does not seem necessary; for since the season of plentitude is the season of low prices, and vice versa, the average is naturally weighted. Using as a basis the 1936 ‘‘normal”’ prices in Panajachel (see Appendix 2), the cash value in Panajachel or Solola of the yield of an average acre of onions may be simply calculated: arpelonions=22o2-2 =- oe = ees $103. 12 Medium onions== o* 29220252 =- 33. 75 Smalltonions- 2-2-5 o> 4-2 7. 43 sLotal, = i= 2a io eee 144. 30 A comparison of these figures with those of table 28 shows the following net profits: Onions grown from home-grown seed eons Seem se oe ae $24. 91 Onions grown from bought seed, but home-grown seedlings_____-____ 17.15 Onions grown from bought seed- DT gs een 8. 37 Thus normally it pays fairly well to grow onions. If a particular field suffers extraordinary vicis- situdes, obviously the farmer might lose rather than profit. On the other hand a farmer’s profits may occasionally soar, if his yield is good when prices are high. Such circumstances must be rare; for if in one field in a terrain as small and homogeneous as the Panajachel delta yields very well or especially poorly, the others are apt to do the same, and market prices will be affected. (But the market price depends on yields in other areas as well.) It is obvious, however, that the care given the onion fields is of great importance; for that must definitely be reflected in the yield of a particular plot. It is also apparent that it pays to rent land for 112 THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE the growing of onions. The lowest cash-rental price is $22.50 an acre (table 14) on which the farmer gets three crops grown from home-grown seed, or four crops from bought seedlings. Even with higher rental prices, it usually pays better than appears at first sight, for it is the best land that is usually rented. On the other hand, it definitely does not pay to rent land for onions in exchange for half the crop. Assuming that onions exclusively are grown, from bought seed to the finished product, the renter would lose (in the value of his labor) about $55 every time he grew a crop! Yet there are well-authenticated cases of such agreements. A standard tablén of onion nursery should yield from a pound of seed, about 48,000 seedlings for transplanting, enough for eight tablones of onions. The seedlings themselves are frequently sold, when the buyer gathers them for transplanting in his own fields. The virtually universal price is 25 cents a vara the width of the tablén. Since there are 32 varas to a tablén, the yield in money is $8 per tablén, or $360 per acre. Since (table 28) the cost of growing the seedlings is either $305.73 or $273.64 per acre, the apparent net profit is $54.27 or $86.36. (But nobody grows more than a small fraction of an acre.) An individual farmer may realize profits at this rate if the nursery produces as it should. However, the nurseries are said fre- quently to fail wholly and in part, and the farmer may lose instead of gain. Many Indians prefer to buy their seedlings rather than to grow them because of the risk involved. It is impossible to get reliable information on the point, but I judge that in the community as a whole something like 10 percent of expectable onion nursery production fails to materialize. Where bought seed is planted, a 10 percent loss is enough to wipe out the profit. A standard tablén of onions allowed to go to seed yields as much as 10 pounds of onion seed. On the other hand sometimes the harvest is entirely lost. The average yield in seed, all things considered, seems to be about 6 pounds, or at the rate of 270 pounds per acre. The 1936 value of this yield, per acre, may be set at $675. A comparison of this figure with the costs shown in table 28 shows a net profit per acre of $366.24, $358.48, or $336.75, depending on from what the onions for the seed are grown. (But again, onion seed is produced in quantities much smaller than acres.) An individual farmer who grows seedlings, onions, and onion seed exclusively for a year profits as follows from an acre of land, assuming that he grows the same proportions of each that are shown on chart 4: Seedlings, 0.071 acre at $86.36___._____- Seen $6. 13 Onions, 0.512 acre at $25.91__________________ 13. 27 Seed, 0.017 acre at $366.24___...._-.__._...-_-. 6. 23 Hots) yiOs tres ee eee ee ee 25. 63 He can do better than this if he manages his agri- culture so that less land is idle between crops, while awaiting seedlings to transplant, etc. But it is unlikely that anybody is so efficient that his profits rise to beyond about $40. Looking at it in this way, obviously a rental of from $22.50 to $33.75 for the acre (table 14) leaves a slim margin of net profit. GARLIC Garlic costs (table 31) are all charged to labor, since the seed is almost invariably home-grown. In a standard tadlén are planted 2,400 sections of garlic taken from the best heads of the previous harvest, which average 10 sections each (the yield, in most general terms, being thus 10 for 1). A few of the best heads have only large sections, all suitable for planting; the next best, from which most seed comes, have five or six large sections (for planting) and four or five small ones (con- sumed or sold). So, roughly 10 percent must be added to the labor cost to supply the seed. The work of braiding is usually done by the family during time that would otherwise not be economically used: evenings and during rainy spells, etc. Not counting the time needed for braiding, the cost comes to about $85.32 an acre. All garlic that is planted normally produces. A good harvest, usually on ‘‘new” land rented from Ladinos, produces uniformly large heads; a medium harvest produces medium-sized heads; and a poor harvest yields very small heads. The large and medium sizes are bunched for sale, 60 heads to a bunch; and an acre yields 1,800 bunches. A poor harvest of small heads (sold by the measure sufficiently uniformly so that they may be treated as if they were sold by the pound) produces about 2,250 pounds per acre. Calculated from the THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 13 normal 1936 prices (Appendix 2), the cash value of the yield in 1936 was, per acre: Good harvest_._________________- $144. 00 Medium harvest______._________- 72. 00 Poor harvest... 222222 2-._2.- 52. 50 TABLE 31.—Cost of growing garlic Cost Man- Work process days per cuerda Per Per cuerda acre Valuable-time labor: Making beds (assuming that 34 of garlic is Watering (twice a week, after fir. weeks, for 6 months, 44 day each time) Sec et se ee Ste ete Fae ae | See oe Harvesting and carrying-._____________- Se ess ee Cleaning and arranging garlic for stor- . BECetaceseuceerees sacteceaceccesacea|’ “Bf aea Zee as|se le ces 3 Additional for seed (10 percent of above) __- {| Ieee ee Pane epee SUDLOta es a Se Seo noe eee 91 $15.17 $85, 32 Braiding for market: 15 bunches per day. (assuming yield is 320 bunches per cuerda)_ 21 3. 50 19. 68 Rotel eco Scns Se oe cee 112 18. 67 105. 00 An individual would thus lose $32.82 per acre (not counting braiding time) if the harvest on his land is all poor. An acre is much more than any Indian plants, but the loss would still be consid- erable for a cuerda. If the harvest is all good, on the other hand, the profit would be tidy, even counting the time for braiding. From calculations made with two informants, I judge that in the community as a whole about 40 percent of the garlic beds deliver good harvests, 40 percent medium, and 20 percent, poor. Using these fig- ures, the average net loss, counting the cost of braiding, is $8.10 per acre, or the average net profit, leaving out the cost of braiding, is $11.58. It must be concluded that Panajachel farmers can hardly expect to break even on garlic. This does not even count the value of the land. Paradox- ically, however, it probably pays to rent land for garlic, because in general the Indians rent for the purpose only ‘‘new”’ land which yields large heads of garlic. Thus even if $33.75 is paid as rent for an acre (table 14) there will be a net profit for the garlic crop of $5.25 even counting the braiding cost; and of course the renter in addition has the use of the land for the months between garlic crops. BEANS Beans grown in irrigated fields (table 32) also have all costs charged to labor, the seed coming from the previous harvest. With 67% pounds sowed to the acre, and the yield 800 pounds of shrub beans or 1,400 pounds of pole beans ™ the ratio is M2 or 1, respectively. This assuines of course that none of the beans are picked green. The value of the harvest, meanwhile, $12.80 and $22.40, respectively, leaves a net loss of $22.80 for shrub beans and $27.26 for pole. Any way one does the bookkeeping the result is the same, and there can be no doubt that growing beans in the delta is a losing business. The reason it must be is that the price of beans is set on the basis of the rainy-season product grown with the milpa. The labor of making tablones and watering increases the cost tremendously without any cor- responding increase in yield. These figures and this discussion concern the growing of mature beans. However, an estimated 30 percent of Panajachel farmers sell part of their yield of shrub beans while still green, and virtually every one sells most of his vine-bean crop in that stage. No labor is saved by cutting the beans green since none would be required for the ma- turing beans; on the other hand the cost of cutting green beans is more than the cost of harvesting and threshing dry beans. If all delta beans should be harvested green, the total labor per cucrda would rise from 38 and 53 man-days to 40 and 56, worth $37.49 and $52.49 per acre, re- TaBLE 32.—Man-days required and cost of growing beans in garden beds Man-day per cuerda Work process Shrub Pole Making beds (assuming that 34 of beans are planted in ‘‘new land”’______________-_---_-----_- 17 7 Planting’=-7---=2. <2 oe zi 2 2 Weeding (cleaning)—once B} 3 Watering (except first 3 weeks; then twice weekly for 3 and 4 months respectively, 44 day each)____ 10 14 Gathering poles (16 days every third year) — 5 Setting up poles___...........-- ~ a 8 Harvesting and carrying dry bea 1 1 Sunning and threshing dry beans_- 2 1 Labor that has gone into seed__-_____-_------------- 3 2 ED OA eee peat re ae ee ee eee 38 53 Cost Per cuerda| Per acre NDI Deans seme ese = se eee ese eee te eee tne. oe $6. 33 $35. 60 1 ah 1) (rere Ciel see rea acne ROC eee lel We 8. 83 49. 66 *1 A good informant helped me calculate for shrub beans a range of 675 to 900 pounds; in an independent case recorded the rate was 844 pounds. The range for pole beans was calculated at 1,125 to 1,665 pounds. 114 THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE spectively. The green beans harvested would be worth an average of $33.75 for shrub beans and about $45 for vine beans, for some loss. This hypothetical case (no Panajachel farmer harvests all of his beans green) indicates that it does not pay to grow beans no matter how they are har- vested. VEGETABLES GROWN FROM IMPORTED SEED Vegetables grown from imported seed (4 cents a package) are planted in such small quantities (on pieces of garden beds or at the edges) that calculations are best made per package of seed (table 33), which occupies some 3 square varas (1/32 of a tablén or 1/1500 of an acre). A package of beet seed yields 200 beets, transplanted to about 1/750 of an acre; cabbage seed, a hundred heads transplanted to 1/45 of an acre. The total costs come to about $93.60 per acre of cabbage; $135, beets; $165, carrots, radishes, and turnips. The cabbage yield per package ranges from 100 large and 50 small heads to only 50 small heads; the normal yield is said to be about 50 large and 50 small heads. Beets are said always to yield well “because they are fertilized’’—100 large and 100 small beets. The best carrot yield per package is said to be 100 large and 200 small, the usual 80 large and 200 small, and the worst 60 large and 200 small. Radishes are said to yield 100 per package. When good, they are all large, when poor all small. Turnips yield 200 per package—all large when the harvest is good and small when it is poor. It is apparent from table 33 that only cabbage gives promise of much profit—and correspondingly it is risky. ROOT CROPS AND PEPPERS The profits from truck farming in general are greater than indicated because sweet cassava, sweetpotatoes, and peppers are grown along the edges of the garden beds and although they take virtually no extra time to produce, they yield good income. In an acre grow about 540 cassava plants, 90 percent of which produce after 2 years. Each plant yields 2 to 3 pounds, so that the annual pro- duct is about 600 pounds per acre, worth $9. Simultaneously some 6,300 sweetpotato plants can grow on the acre. But since most farmers grow these only on two edges of each tablén (onions or garlic on the others), the average number per acre is probably only 4,500, 80 percent of which live to TABLE 33.—Returns from vegetable growing Man-days of Cost (per pack- labor required age of sced) Return (per package of seed) s Whe) 3 Item g 3 8 gs 8s/5/_3 be ts | 4 Bs 4 AP) aa Cabbage... -2--2---=2 91) 522} 2.9 |$0. 48) $0. 04/$0. 52/$0. 17/$0. 92 1S-Orcet ahaa easen 115 .85) .14 - 05) .19) 18 ec! Carrots, radishes, and turnips yield from 1 to 2 pounds per year, for a total of 6,400 pounds, worth $64. The several varieties of peppers planted like sweet cassava are not a common crop. Perhaps the added income from peppers raises the total income from tablén-edge produce to $80 per acre per year. Probably a fourth of all Indian tablén acreage has these crops and yields this extra income. However, they take the place of about 1,500 onion plants, where they grow, and thus reduce the onion yield by 30 per- cent. It may be estimated that 20 percent less onions are grown in the community than the onion acreage would indicate. PEPINOS Pepinos are evidently a very profitable crop when grown on “new” land, for if the costs (table 34) are compared with the estimated yield (see p. 55), it will be seen that an acre at its best produced a net of $237.38. An average harvest, at 1936 prices, grossed $206.70 for a net of $114.48. The poorest yield, grossed $69.76, for a loss of $22.46. Evidently it paid well to rent good land. COFFEE To the cost of labor in growing coffee (table 35) might be added that of the fertilizer used when the coffee is transplanted from nursery to grove. Amortized over 30 years, it cannot add more than a few cents. If the owner has no husking machine, the rental (for husking a yield of 562 pounds) comes to 57 cents, the total cost thus rising to $9.86. Against this cost was an income of $33.72, for a net of $23.86 per acre.** To this should be added about $1.40, the value of the berry pulp, used as fertilizer. In fact, however, the poorer Indians profited less than this, for they sold their coffee as futures for $3 and $4 a hundred pounds. * Calculated on the basis of yields discussed above (p. 56) and the $6-a- bundred price that Panajachel coffee brought in Panajache! in 1936, THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE ss The average obtained by Panajachel Indians was probably about $4.50. Even at the lowest figure, TABLE 34.—Cost of growing pepinos Man-days| Cost per BEerIS ORGOSL per cuerda| acre LORY 1 25 ga aR a eee ee ee ee Labor: Seranineneland ase e see aan oases sesso Digging and making hills__ z Making the holes for planting _ Carrying and placing fertilizer_ : Rlanting: ets ses 2 Sessa e 2 so eeese een nskesse Watering (twice weekly during 6 dry months, 1 day. each time): 22-22 2<.22cs2-5<. 5 .cSs- ee ea neane 52) | eee eee Weeding (once monthly, ten times, 2 days each Cutting posts for fence_ Planting posts of fence____ Gathering vines for the fence ___-__-_--- Cutting and carrying cornstalks for fence_ Making the fence_-<--_ "9-52 -= 2222-2. Harvesting (little by little), estimate - al Cutting shoots for planting__-___-___-_----_---____ 1 Rarely the farmer buys (instead of using his own) branches of pepino bushes to plant. The additional cost (at 10 cents per cuerda) would be 56 cents for the acre. TABLE 35.—Cost of an acre of coffee Man-days| Cost per Items of cost per cuerda| acre 1, Cost of planting coffee: a. Nursery (1 tablon):! Making the garden bed___-__-_-._-_--___._ Fertilizing and planting . Wieedin sameeren eens ena Watering (semiweekly in 6 dry months, 1 hourjeach'time)--—---- 2.2 - eee Ci | fees ees Flooding, harvesting, binding seedlings for EMO Vale cee es ae oa cee ate aeeeae Dads eras sone Wires nace kn coeecceescanecsoucenses. CTY) Keeper Carrying coffee and shade seedlings (assum- ing 1 kilometer distance)_---_---_----___- PA eer ee Planting coffee and shade trees_____-_-_____ ey | Seeeegenee es Total eee een ec eakssccennce esas eos DEA Sy ees ores Total man-daysX5.6 acresX$0.1634 per hour~+30 years 3 amortization -_----......__|-.-------- $0. 42 2. Annual cost in mature grove: 4 Wifst cleaning salen! 82S oe ee ie NEEsc2ense= Second cleaning___ ees Gathering berries. = 92. (2222-22 <2-2- <2 522222 1o. BB este Husking and separating berries___-.___________- Ta See ie el Washing besrissss. sires ewe oo a ee 2 eee Te | kee ee Drying beans___- 1 Ce | bape ee Gleaning heans*=-. 22-225 222s cdi | oer Ota ee en needa ceeedeeaataee 965) basse we Total X5.6 acres X$0.163% per hour_____-___-___|_--_-___-_ 8. 87 Potala et aeons be See eta 9. 29 1 Except for the last item, this labor is not included in the report to the President (Appendix 1), The information was supplemented by a reliable informant in 1941, 2 Information chiefly from Appendix 1, which is inaccurate in saying that shade trees require the same labor as the coffee, for only a fourth as many shade as coffee trees are planted. 3 This figure was given by Ladinos, and it checks fairly well with the little reliable case material available. Most Indian coffee has not been growing for that long. One Indian, 46 years old, recalls that coffee now producing for him was planted when he was a child, which indicates that the 30-year figure isa minimum. This informant said that 40 years is the maximum. 4 From Appendix 1, and probably almost perfectly accurate, since work in coffee groves is standardized much like that in cornfields. However, it may be noted that the time consumed varies with the method of payment of hired labor (it is less if piecework is paid). however, the net came to about $7 an acre. Against this must be accounted the investment and the value the land might have for other purposes. FRUIT Table 36 is based on a hasty count, with a reliable informant, of fruit trees owned by each family in 1941. A census of a sample of a few households indicated that the count consistently tended to understate the number. Visible trees had been noted, but an almost equal number were apparently hidden. Table 36 therefore includes a correction, but the calculations may err as much as 25 percent. It is assumed that the fruit situation did not materially change from 1936 to 1941. Fruit yields are very variable, depending on the kind, size, and quality of the tree; the estimates here given are based on calculations made with one good informant, checked against other information more casually obtained. The prices are from Appendix 2. Ranges in yields of most fruits are not great; for example, mangos yield from 800 to 1,000, cross-sapodillas from 300 to 400, white sapodillas from 600 to 700 (half of which rot on the tree), limas from 100 to 150, limes from 500 to 600, ete. The greatest variation is in papayas, peaches, oranges, and sour oranges, the yield vary- TABLE 36.— Time consumed in and income from fruit growing, Costs Gross income er’ | 1 N : er ours} Tota et in- Fruit of per | man- | 7 spor Yield come trees | year | days aera per Total (each per tree? tree) | year! Vegetable pear_____- 200 3 67 | $11.17 3125 | $104.00] $92.83 ‘Orangé:=. 2222-5255. 310 2 69 | 11.5 300 | 232.50 | 221.00 Sour orange-____-___- 150 al 17 2. 83 150 21.00 18.17 (1/3) Rae oer 210 at 23 3. 83 125 52. 50 48. 67 Dime? 253 as eee 85 2 19 Belt 550 46.75 43. 58 Avocado:..-..-..... 150 3 50 8.33 400 | 199.50 191.17 Cross-sapodilla-_____ 100 3 33 5. 50 350 | 117.00 111. 50 White sapodilla_____ 40 1 4 67 325 26. 00 25. 33 Spanish plum: Petapase 22 100 3 33 5. 50 2,500 | 125.00 119. 50 Chicha_-- 60 3 20 3. 33 2, 500 60. 00 5A. 67 Corona__- 25 2.6 7 1.17] 2,000 | 33.25 32.08 Mio 2252522582 10 2 2 -33 | 1,500 3.00 2. 67 Tamalito-__----- 45 3 15 | 2.50] 3,500] 31.50 29. 00 Panchoy_-------- 10 2 2 33 2, 000 10.00 9. 67 Papaya! 40 1 4 67 22 8.80 8.13 Peach........-_.---- 70 1 8] 1.33] 75 6.30 4.97 Mango________ ea 60 3 20 3.33 900 | 108.00 104. 67 Banansecs- 22-2524" 1,000} 2 a2 20 || 3.33 5 40. 00 36. 67 Sugarcano..__.__.--- 25 1 3 . 50 440 } 7.50 7.00 | Motales --a-=4 12; 6907 eo an 416 | 69.32 |___-__- 1,232.00 |1, 163. 28 1 Calculated on the basis of a 9-hour working day. ? Calculated on the basis of prices in Appendix 2. 3125 fruits, 7 roots. 4 40 sections. 116 THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE ing 100 percent. In the case of some varieties of Spanish plums, the number of fruit is greater than shown, the remainder eaten by the birds. Since so little cost is involved, the profit from fruit is considerable. The Panajachel Indians devote their energies to agriculture, but a good part of their living comes from the sale of fruit which comes near to being a free resource. SUMMARY: COSTS AND PROFITS The total cost of the harvests produced by resi- dent Indians, on land exploited for themselves, came to a little more than $24,000 (table 37). About 95 percent of this amount represents the cost of labor which was almost entirely of the Indian community itself. Only the small remain- der was spent in cash outside the community— for labor, tools, a little fertilizer and a few seeds, a few dollars worth of candles and incense, and rent paid to outsiders. The total value of the produce harvested by the Indians on the same land was over $26,000 (table 38). From the apparent net profit of $2,146.90 must be subtracted $380, the value of produce given as rental; about $320 for market taxes, bus fares, etc.; and about $900 for the value of the time devoted to selling the produce. Actually, of course, all this sum need not be subtracted from the profit, for the value of the produce was fig- ured on the basis of Panajachel prices, and the merchandise sold outside presumably brought enough more to make up the value of the time TaBLE 37.—Toltai cost of agricultural products Seed, fer-| Cash ¥ ; Annual + Value of tilizer, | rent Outside Product labor leaves, | out- _ bor Total etc. side : Hill milpa-_-_--_-- $781. 67 $25. 41 Senile Sasneeo|eearecaen Delta corn = 195, 00 3.90 Onion nursery.-_| 3,480.05 560. 51 QOnions---__-.----}! 12,430. 71 502. 88 Onion seed -| 1,095. 59 16. 16 Garlic. - 1, 638. 00 163. 80 360 z Shrub be 416. 94 34.75 $216.77 | $121. 67 |. Pole bea 224.73 10.10 Vegetables 2_ 258. 38 100. 87 Pepinos_-- 1, 054.17 6. 32 Coffee__.-._.--- S40 00 ser sss ee eee. 1 1 | eee ee 67. G7. asemctetee| noone ) Total_....- 21,982.91 |3 1,424.70 | 285 121. 67 |$24, 131. 05 216. 77 1 It is assumed, as in teble 38, that the onion acreage is reduced 20 percent by the rrowing of tubers and peppers in onion beds. The labor is reduced by only 5 percent, however (and that reduction has here been made) because only the transplanting and preparing-for-market items are affected. 2 Assuming that 0.4 acre of beets were grown in 1936. 2 Of this total, about $200 is for fertilizer and broad covering leaves, $190 for packaged seed, and $10 for candles, incense, and food consumed in connection with harvests of corn. The total of $310 is spent outside the community. The remainder, $1,104.70 is really chargeable to local labor, $400 for fertilizer and leaves locally produced, and the remainder for fencing materisls and & pecially home-grown seeds. Tape 38.—Value of agricultural products Consumed Total b Sold to Product in com- i value munity ! outsiders Gorn Peet ne eee $2,051.00 | $2,051.00 |------------ Beans : ae 4360. 70 B00.70)|Sstoccancees Squash. 135. 00 80. 3 54.7 Onions. 312, 929, 28 113. 63 12, 815. 65 Onion se 2, 430. 00 1, 574. 72 855. Garlic... 1, 626. 72 36. 80 1, 589. 92 Vegetables 276. 60 181. 41 95.19 1, 800. 00 161, 31 1, 638. 69 2, 377. 05 13. 54 2, 363. 51 1, 052. GO 418. 32 633. 68 1, 239. 60 417. 42 822. 18 26, 277. 95 5, 409. 15 20, 868. 80 1 Of. table 67. Except in items where there is special reason for not doing so, for convenience it is falsely assumed that the local product is consumed first, then additional supplics bought from outside. This is not true in all eases. For example, Panajichel producers sell most of their green-bean crop and in other seasons buy green beans; and throughout the year alse buy dry beans. Thus the space for beans “‘sold to outsiders”? should not be blank, while in table 67, the items under beans and green beans “produced in com- munity’ should be correspondingly less. But since the result is the same in the finel bookkecping, 1 am doing it this way. 2 This figure assumes that 85 percent of shrub beans and 50 percent of vine beans are permitted to ripen, sAssuming that the total oninn acreage is reduced by 20 percent for the growing of root crops and peppers ‘Assuming that 6.4 acre of beets were grown and that miscellaneous vege- tables besides beets produced 10 cents worth of vegetables per package of seed planted. expended. On the basis of the figures presented here the net profit from agriculture was evidently something like $1,500. That is to say that if the Indians owned no agricultural land and worked exclusively for outsiders (and could always obtain work at the prevailing rates) they would be about $1,500 poorer—or its equivalent in goods pur- chased—than they actually are at the end of each year. Their agriculture not only gives them steady work, but a little extra as profit. Roughly 80 percent of the $26,000 crop is sold for cash outside the community, and only the small remainder is consumed. Almost $13,000 in cash is realized from the sale of onions alone and amply explains why the people of Panajachel consider onions the basis of their economy. SUMMARY: TIME CONSUMPTION The total number of man-days devoted to agri- cultural production on resident Indian lands, owned and controlled, and rented, came to some 120,854 man-days in 1936 (table 39), including work done by the men, women, and children of the community as well as that done by hired laborers—virtually all Indian—-living outside the community. It assumes that all work is done by adult men. The times given are calculated on the basis of what an industrious man can do in a day. Since women and youths of both sexes do a good part of the agricultural work, it is neces- THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 117 sary to distinguish agricultural work done by the two sexes and by people of various ages, for the value of a woman’s or a child’s time is less than that of a man. If it could be assumed that a woman or child, as compared with a man, accom- plished work in proportion to their wages, the distinction from the point of view of costs would not be important. But this is not always true. A boy cannot work as fast as a man in the making of a tablén or in the various processes of the milpa; but a boy can probably replace a man in other cases. For example, three men usually make a tablén together; the most skilled, cer- tainly a grown man, guides the others, but if a boy of 12 takes the role of one of the others, the work is probably not slowed appreciably. Like- wise, & woman can probably transplant as fast and as well as a man, or do the weeding of an onion bed with equal efficiency, or braid garlic as fast. ‘Yet, their time is considered worth less than that of a man, and their wage is smaller. These dis- tinctions have been made in table 19, from which it may be concluded that adult males did a total of about 83,000 man-days and women and chil- dren about 38,000; men thus did some 70 percent of the work in the fields. Since women and chil- dren work more slowly (in some employment) than do men, the 38,000 “man-days” probably took them 45,000-odd full days of work, and the total time spent by Indians in their fields was actually 128,000 work days. From this total, TaBLE 39.—Time devoted to agriculture hore Man-days Total Crop 1 per acre- | Man-days econ crop 3 in 1936 1360105 sat op: eepay gn es eee ees 397.7 450 4, 885 Delta corn_..--=--- 2 5 32.6 36 1,170 Onions from seed -_-_- 127.6 652 83, 195 eee seed from seed- 3.6 1, 788 6, 437 BENG SS eer an nates ewes Joe 16.8 629 10, 576 St a ete 12.7 214 2,717 ine beans. 4.7 297 1, 396 Ganbaccm 1.5 522 783 Beets, ete_.. 75 647 323 sees CtCre=. Jes 1.0 614 614 epinos____-- 11.5 539 6, 198 lOfee-. ===. 6 38.5 55.7 2, 144 IEEE DIG.b) Sees oes n oe eee o ee NIL oo eek |e 416 Motel owe dee ewsae ake nesses |tedattasenns|escdecaccce 120, 854 1 These figures were derived by estimating the number of acres of the crop growing on the first of each month of the year (cf. chart 4) and, totaling these acres for the year, dividing by the number of months in the growing season. pee where there is one crop in the year, the highest monthly figure was aken. 2 From tables 27, 29-36, 3 Includes hill milpa lands owner-controlled, and rented (hence used) in 1936, within and outside the area of study, by resident Indians. ‘ Assuming that %o of the cornfields were planted on old land. § 28 of truckland milpa plus 4.5 of cornfield in nonirrigated deita land. a total Indian coffee acreage (39.4) less than pawned to outsiders (see p. 81). however, must be subtracted 730 days that Indians from outside the community are calcu- lated to have worked on resident Indian lands. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY In comparison with agriculture, animal hus- bandry is extremely unimportant in Panajachel. As will be shown, it is also uneconomical. Al- though one or a few families once counted more sheep and mules in its possession, pastured on land outside of Panajachel, the numbers were never large. A count (table 40) in 1940 shows that the order of numbers is such that no family depends for its living on the raising of animals. Actually (table 41) 38 families kept no animals whatsoever; another 36 had only dogs or cats; and of the remaining 81, 4 had only nonproductive horses or mules (in addition to dogs). In general, the wealthier the family (table 80) the more domestic animals it keeps. “Foreign” Indians, for the most part artisan town-dwellers, kept almost no animals but horses, dogs, and cats. Of Panajachelefios, 24 families without any animals fell into the groups owning least land. Half of the households had chickens or other fowl, a little over a fifth, pigs. In both cases the land-rich tended to have more than the land-poor. Cattle, horses, goats, mules, and sheep were owned by relatively few people, and in the higher wealth brackets; none of the poorest quarter had such animals. Three-fourths of Panajachelefio families kept dogs or cats, or both; and again the number owned varied with the amount of land. FOWL Almost any Indian will say that “Every house- wife has her chickens.’’ Therefore, it is significant that in fact 95 out of the 155 households do not keep them and only 24 have flocks of 15 or more birds, one of them the maximum of 44. Chickens, kept in small coops fitted with poles for roosting, often run loose during the day, except when everybody of the house is busy in the gardens, or away at market. They are fed corn at least once a day and frequently twice. Laying hens require special care, and there is considerable technology (as well as magical practice) involved in the keeping of chickens. Ducks, and one kind of pigeon, are also bred; a second pigeon is caught wild or more frequently bought caged and its 118 wings clipped when it is accustomed to the house so that it can be given the freedom of the yard. These wild pigeons are occasionally allowed to multiply in the house. Probably the women and children who care for the fowl a few minutes at a time dribble away only about an hour a week in their care. TaBLE 40.—Value of domestic animals owned Average Total Kind Number |-ajue(each)| value Chickens, young. ---..------------------- 365 $0. 10 $36. 50 Hens sndiroosters:.22.-- <3. 2-252 22 445 - 20 89. 00 14 1,75 5, 25 22 1,50 5. 50 40 2. 50 100. 00 14 1.50 21.00 13 1.12 14. 60 8 7. 50 60. 00 OWS aaa as 8 13. 50 108. 00 Calves 8 4.00 32.00 Rabbits____- 6 1,20 - 60 Guinea pigs- -- 10 1.10 - 50 Colmena bees_- -- 14 71.00 14.00 Coxpin bees_-_-_-- 4 7.10 . 40 Horses and mules_ 20 12. 50 250, 00 10) ea ee 198 . 30 59. 40 CO BLG nents habit oP ece wae cc ses 61 -10 6.10 AUC ea ace ae oe ee ree] AE SR (ocean 802. 85 1 Per pair. 2 Per hive. Because they are important in belief and custom and a “good” housewife is expected to keep them, it is noteworthy that turkeys are absent and chickens sparse, and that this fact coincides with the fact that it does not pay to raise chickens in Panajachel. One careful informant estimated that his flock of 2 roosters and 17 hens ate 480 pounds of corn in 1936, worth $6; during the year he lost 4 chicks, worth 40 cents. Thus, not counting the value of the time expended in caring for the fowls, building the coop, etc., the cost was $6.40. At the same time the value of the THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE flock increased (by natural growth) by $1.60— counting the four chicks that died—and produced 360 eggs worth $4.50, for a total of $6.10 and a net loss of 30 cents. Data from several other informants make it clear that at best one breaks even on the raising of chickens. Thus a household owning 5 roosters, 16 hens, and 18 chicks casually reported that the flock consumed 2 pounds of corn daily ($9 worth a year) and increased in value by $3.40 in the year while some 400 to 500 eggs (worth $5 to $6.25) were produced; another with 6 hens reported that each laid 18 eggs monthly for 6 months for a total of 648 during a year (worth $8.10) and that the flock ate 2 pounds of corn daily ($9.12 a year). The Indians appear to know that it does not pay to raise chickens, and that perhaps explains why so many do not. Certainly they do not raise turkeys for that reason, for they frequently say that a turkey eats as much as a pig while at the same time the fowls are delicate and often sicken and die. But, aside from the feeling that a household is not complete without chickens, there is a recognized reason why it is desirable to raise them. During the rainy season when money is scarce and corn must be purchased, the sale of chickens is a source of emergency income. On August 15, 1936, Rosales noted in his diary that many women were selling chickens in order to buy corn and sugar because money was scarce; ‘““The onions are all gone and only garlic is left, and its price is low.’”’ An Indian reported before All Souls’ Day that he took chickens to Solola to sell in order to buy things for the fiesta. We fre- quently noticed that when the need for money arose, a single hen or rooster was offered for sale. TaBLe 41.—Combinations of domestic animals } Animals Number of households owning each combination 2 5]... 33 tpn i et SS) ie ee Mae oe ce ee Rabbits i wen trond Chant oar oe : YY yyy ay. diay iy yaad 1} 1) 1. 2 Be ed fs Wt Fe UT | bt et pe m _ i eee ee eee zt ee fs 2| 2) 2 38} 33] 11] 7| 6 2) 2) 2' to 2 6} 4! 3 1 To read this table, ct 33 households have only dogs, 11 have only dogs and chickens, etc. nimal. 2 } 1 a Pe 8 ie a YO ie 8 i i YS 8 a ee Pa Gee i od begin with the numbers in the ‘Total’ row and follow them up. Thus, 38 households have no animals (for all the other spaces are The column headed ‘‘Total’’ shows how many households have each species of THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 119 When it was pointed out to Indians that it did not pay them to raise fowl, their most frequent reply was that it is good to have chickens for sale when money is needed. HOGS Hogs, not bred in Panajachel, are bought when young and fattened for sale. Of the 29 families that were fattening hogs in 1936, 11 had 2 head each, and none had more than 2. An 8-month-old pig bought at about a dollar,® is sold after 7 or 8 months for from 3 to 6 dollars, and a young one bought to replace it. Pigs are rarely allowed loose, since the houses are surrounded by gardens; their diet is therefore chiefly kitchen waste and corn. An hour a week by the wife and children probably takes care of them. Hogs are certainly very poor business. Some of the Indians who realize this give it as the reason why they do not raise them. Others, although they know hogs are not profitable, may not realize how much they actually lose, and raise them as a means of invest- ing money when corn is more plentiful, for liquida- tion when money is scarce. A wealthy Indian with two pigs estimated that they consumed 1,400 pounds of corn (worth $17.50) and 10 pounds of salt (worth 15 cents) in the fattening process. In addition, he spent a dollar to make a pen and 26 cents to castrate and keep the young boars in good health. He did not figure the additional cost of rope, which came to about 24 cents, or the value of the time involved. Including the original cost of the pigs (but not time spent), he had invested $20.15 by the time they were fattened, and the pigs were worth but half of that. This man, who grew his own corn, perhaps did not calculate his losses; certainly the factor of saving money does not enter in his case, for he is wealthy and usually has cash on hand. Juan Rosales recalls that in his wealthy father’s house when he was young they once took to raising pigs; when they had 2 or 3, the amount of corn consumed by the pigs was not noticed particularly; but when the number soared to about a dozen, they saw that the corn supply was rapidly dwindling and then did some calculating and thereafter never raised pigs! There are other similar cases in my notes; certainly many Indians know that a pig’s consumption of 3 %3 They are usually bought in Solol4, but they are sometimes bought more cheaply elsewhere. In 1940 I was told they sold for 40 cents at the annual fair in Chichicastenango, and at least one Panajachelefio went there to buy a pig. or 4 pounds of corn daily for 8 months makes hog raising unprofitable. A young Indian of a poor household learned his lesson in 1941. About November 1, 1940, he told me proudly that he had a pig fattening. It cost him $1 and in from 4 to 6 months would be worth $4. He thought it was a good practice: “It is no good if people eat all of their corn every day; give some to the pig, and it grows and you get money out of it. You don’t notice the daily expense in corn, and later when you need it, you will get a large sum of money.” He said that the pig ate 3 pounds of corn daily. When we calculated the cost (as he himself had not done) he was surprised. In 6 months the pig would consume $6.50 worth of corn! But he still thought it was a good way to save money. On January 11 he complained that (although 3 weeks before, he had turned down an offer of $2.50 for his pig, now quite fat) he was offered only $1.50. On February 5 he told me that the pig weighed 150 or 175 pounds and he was getting no offers for it, the butchers apparently all going to Atitlan to buy hogs. On March 23 he finally sold the animal to a local butcher for $3; he said he was tired of feeding it corn while waiting for a better price. A week later the butcher killed the pig and found it diseased and the young man had to return $1.50 of the purchase price. He swore that he would never buy a pig again. GOATS AND SHEEP Goats are bought when young for about a dollar and sold for twice that when grown. Sheep simi- larly are worth 75 cents when young, $1.50 when grown. Like pigs, they are simply fattened, al- though in times past they were sometimes bred. The goats are not milked, but the sheep are oc- casionally shorn and the wool sold or used in the house in pillows. Since goats and sheep are pastured in the river bed, along the roadsides, and in the hills, virtually their only expense is the value of the time taken incidental to other tasks, no more than, say, 3 hours a week. Occasionally a sheep is fed corn-dough water that is left in the kitchen, but that has no money value. On the whole, there is probably little gain or loss in fattening goats and sheep. CATTLE At least four of the six families owning cows (one of them owning three) also owned a calf of 120 THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE each cow. Cows are kept for milk, sold chiefly to Ladinos, and are also bred—for which purpose all but one dairy must rent a bull, usually from a Ladino. Bulls or steers are bought as yearlings to fatten for sale; they are frequently gelded (by a professional). A calf, bought for 5 dollars, doubles in value in about 2 years when it is ready for sale. A female calf costs about $7, and a milk cow is worth about $20. A calf new-born is val- ued at about $3, and of course increases in value. Cattle are pastured during the day and brought in at night incidental to other work by men, boys, or old men. As one informant put it, such ani- mals “are good for a rich old man like Nicolas Chivalan who cannot work hard and who directs his mozos and cares for his animals and _ little else.” Cows, however, receive special care, espe- cially when they calve. The steer-fattening fam- ilies spend some 20 hours a week each on their cattle; the cow-owning households, about 35. For a few months in the dry season the cattle owner, if he owns no pasture land, frequently rents some from Ladinos, at 50 cents a month. This seems inordinately expensive considering the rental cost of land for planting corn and taking into account that pasture land is enriched by use. In the rainy season there is sufficient free foliage along the lake shore, in the river bed, and along the roadsides. Only the value of the manure produced makes it possible for the business of fattening steers to pay. In 2 years a steer consumes 50 cents worth of salt, 30 cents worth of rope, and 3 or 4 dollars may be paid for pasture privileges. With these expenses, the value increases only $5; and mean- while 200 man-days of time (with a normal value of $33) may easily be consumed. Although much of the time has less cash value, it hardly seems worth while io raise cattle. The explanation is that most cattle owners own milpa or pasture land and thus not only pay no rent and enrich their own soil, but collect and sell (or use) the manure of the stable or yard. Cows are probably better business. They are fed the water of corn dough, which amounts to kitchen waste.*4 Milk (sold for 5 or 10 centsaliter) and calves should make worth while the added time consumed in caring for the cows and their offspring. Recent sanitary No family keeping cows also keeps pigs, which are also fed this water. regulations, however, have put something of a crimp in the business.®® Rabbits (kept for pleasure as well as food) and guinea pigs (also eaten) are to unimportant for extended discussion; they are cared for by the children, and eat kitchen waste. BEES Coxpin bees (or wasps) are one of several varie- ties of wild bee found nearby, and the only one now brought to the house in its hollow log. The hive is valued at 10 cents probably because it produces wax of that value in a year. The children sometimes eat the sour honey, but it has no commercial value. The only honey-producing bees now kept are the colmena bees of Kuropean origin, hives of which are bought at about $1 each, The only expense connected with their care is the planting of flowers in the yard (which many have anyway). But the disadvantage of keeping bees is that they may leave the hive and house. They produce about a dollar’s worth of honey and 30 cents’ worth of wax a year. HORSES AND MULES The beasts of burden (there are no oxen) are referred to simply as “beasts,’’? but mules are pre- ferred for burdens, and they usually cost more. The beasts are used for riding and for carrying loads. Of the 19 households owning them 3 are foreign Indians who use the animals for riding; 5 others are wealthy families the head of which in each case has a saddle horse. The remaining 11 households have pack animals and use them in trade with distant markets. In these cases the merchant is able to take a larger quantity to market, and the animals may be said to have commercial value. Most Indians doubt that pack animals repay their keep. Since fodder is not plentiful in Panajachel, and the animals are fed considerable amounts of corn, they are probably right; but if the manure is taken into considera- tion (as it does not appear to be) horses and mules may possibly be profitable investments. These animals are never bred in town; they are bought and sold fully grown, for a variable price % The most important Indian dairyman, who had three cows in 1940, told me in 1941 that he had five cows but no calves, hence no milk, but that even if his cows produced milk he would be unable to sell it without a license, unobtainable unless he built a two-room stable with a cement floor. THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 121 running to about $10 for a horse and $15 for a mule. Their care is in the hands of the men and boys who average some 5 hours weekly to feed and occasionally wash them and cure their ail- ments. DOGS AND CATS Dogs and cats are primarily companion animals and have little commercial value. The former help guard the house and cornfield, and the latter kill rats and mice. But their utility is limited, and the damage they do may well balance their usefulness. These animals may be considered luxuries, and are found more commonly among the rich than the poor. The maximum number of dogs in any household in 1940 was 4 (5 cases) ; 16 families had 3 each, 45 had 2, and 40 had but 1 each. Most of the 49 families which had none were on the lower wealth levels. Six of the 33 cat-owning families had 3 apiece, 16 had 2 each, and 11 but 1 apiece. All but 2 households with cats also kept dogs. Cats and dogs, sometimes purchased when young, are most frequently raised in the home; the young are often sold, for about 10 cents. A grown dog (though less frequently the object of transactions) is usually valued at about 50 cents. Kittens or cats, not usually found in the market place, are exchanged for chicks or other small things. One Indian valued his cat at 15 cents, another at 20 cents; they were probably high. Dogs and cats require little care; but they need food beyond kitchen waste and that for which they forage. One wealthy Indian with three dogs and three cats estimated that the former consume a pound of corn and the latter a quarter of a pound daily. If that estimate is near correct, a dog costs $1.50 a year in corn alone and a cat a quarter of that. A female dog makes up part of that cost with the value of its litter, and some people keep a bitch precisely for that purpose, selling the litter in the markets when they go with other produce. But on the whole it cannot be said that dogs are kept for commercial purposes or that they pay for themselves. SUMMARY: COSTS AND PROFITS Table 42, which summarizes the costs and re- turns of animal husbandry, shows that, in com- parison with agriculture, the raising of domestic animals is of no importance in Panajachel— economically, at least. The cost of raising animals is not even 6 percent of the cost of raising crops; the income from animal husbandry is less than 5 percent of that from agricultural produce. TaBLE 42.—Estimated costs of and returns from domestic animals, 1940 Expenses ! Income? Kind Feed Phe Growth] Milk, an an eggs, Total | salt, walae Total lincrease| or’ ete. of time) (net) rent Fowl anc eenee eae ene $178. 88 $150 | $28.88 | $142. 60 $30 | $112. 50 Pigg. osteo 363. 83 350 | 13,83 160. 00 160) |<- 2.2252 f 2. ; = 1 Horses and mules....- 194. 16 4120 | 74.16 20:00)! -cecuee 20, 00 Dogs and cats_..-.-_- 270. 00 270" |ececucce 25. 00 prt Eee 2 ee Votalvsso. scccs 1, 346. 04 916 | 430. 04 |1, 260. 50 325 | 935. 50 1 Pastures not considered; the manure left is considered to balance it; nor are pen- or coop-building costs included. 2 Manure not taken into consideration. 3 This figure is based on a guess that the cows average 3 or 4 liters daily. 4 Based on personal experience in 1937, DISPOSAL OF PRODUCE Artisans and professionals sell their products or services in their homes or shops to those who come to buy. Laborers are either sought out by em- ployers, or shop themselves for employment, or enter into relatively permanent arrangements with patrones. ‘The discussion to follow is virtually confined to the sale of the agricultural produce which forms the basis of the local economy. The corn grown by the Indians of Panajachel is practically never sold. Only a few families grow enough corn for their own household uses, and probably nobody harvests a surplus of any size. Possibly some Indians, in need of money for emergencies, sell their corn after the harvest and subsequently buy piecemeal what they need them- selves; but no such case came to light. True, Indians occasionally lend corn to friends and neighbors when money is scarce or there is none in the market; but they expect to be repaid in corn rather than money. The problem in Pana- jachel is not to find a market for the sale of corn but to find the means to buy it. The same can be said, with less assurance, of the other milpa products; for beans and squash are rarely if ever sold. Green beans are an important item of market produce, especially those grown in irri- gated land, but mature beans, even those grown in garden beds, are almost never sold. There is a woman who raises a special variety of squash in 122 THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE her gardens (exceptional because squash are rarely grown outside the milpa) to sell. Processed corn and bean foods such as tamales and atol are sold by local women. But by and large, the products that are associated with the milpa, with the excep- tion of green beans separately grown, are not for sale by the Panajachel Indians who produce them. Coffee, to the direct contrary, is almost all sold. Some of the growers of coffee even sell their entire crops and buy what they need during the year. One reason for this is that Panajachel coffee, which is high grade, brings a better price than that which can be bought in the market. Another is that very many poor families sell their coffee ‘‘on the bush” long before the harvest. Indian growers do not market their coffee. Instead, Ladinos come to their houses to buy it to send to the capital for export. Some of the wealthier Indians hold out for better prices, but never attempt to market it themselves. The middlemen often profit from these transactions with little risk, since before they buy they know the price to be had in Guate- mala City. It is to the disposal of their vegetables and fruit that the Indians devote their commercial atten- tion. The sale of this produce is effected in several ways: (1) A large part of the vegetable crop, and to a lesser extent the fruit, is sold to merchants of other towns who make a practice of coming to the homes of the local Indians to bargain for onions, garlic, pepinos, etc. The most important business of this kind is in connection with onions (something like half of which may be sold in this way), bought usually by Sololateco merchants who take them to Guatemala City to sell. When onions are in particular demand in the capital, Sololatecos (less frequently Atitecos or others) are seen knocking at doors looking for onions, or harvesting and preparing them, or fixing their cargoes. They often buy them by the unharvested tablén, or they pick up smaller quantities from several growers. Onion seed (Panajachel seed is supposed to be especially good) is also bought by outsiders (most frequently from Mixco) who come to shop for it. Nursery seedlings are also occasionally bought for transplanting by Sololatecos, Atitecos, Tepanecos and perhaps others. Although cases of Atitecos’ buying cabbages are recalled, other vegetables are less frequently bought in this manner. Very frequently and in great quantities during the very short season, pepinos are purchased by merchants from other towns, especially Sololé, who take them to Guatemala City. Fruit is frequently sold in this manner also. During the Spanish-plum season Catarinecos, especially, buy the unhar- vested fruit of whole trees, which they then take home to ripen and eventually to sell in other towns. They also buy ripe and harvested fruit. Cases have been noted of Chichicastenango Indians buying plums and oranges, of Luquefios buying green avocados to take to Guatemala City, of Andresanos buying limas and oranges at the time of the corn harvest, to give to their harvesters, of Antofieros buying limas, of Jorgeiios buying stems of green bananas to ripen and sell in the Sololé market, and so on. (2) A relatively unimportant means of disposing of the local produce is by house-to-house sales to Ladino families and to hotels, and to traveling merchants passing through, either on the road or at the piers where they embark and disembark. Only women engage in such selling, and they usually offer small quantities of a variety of fruits and vegetables, or eggs and fowl. A few women (none native Panajachelefias) also sell beef and pork products,” and one local Totonicapefia began in 1937 to make a rice-and-milk drink to sell chiefly at the Ladino houses. Most women sell the produce from home, but in some cases they may buy them from others for resale at a profit. One may guess that a fourth of the households are more or less regularly represented by women and girls who sell at the houses, on the roads, and at the piers several days of each week. Since they sell the family produce, their “profits’’ are not separable from the earnings of agriculture. (3) The chief means of disposing of produce is in the market place. Every landed family sells at least part of its produce in formal markets. Local Indians sell their own produce or that of other families, which they buy in private to take to market. Exceptionally, they bring produce pur- % Local Indian women never sell fowl in the local market; in one case noted a women sold a hen in the Solol4 market. Fowl] are evidently sold only when the woman is in need of cash, for she prefers the less public method of going to a customer’s house. 9%” Especially pork products. Most pigs being butchered by Ladinos, the business is largely in their hands. Beef products are usually sold in connec- tion with the butcher shops, but one Ladino butcher hired a local Totoni- capenia to sell beef-belly at the houses. Rosales one day (October 27, 1936), spoke to her when he had bought some and found that she received a cent for each 5 pounds sold. She carried 30 or 40 pounds in a basket on her head, her child meanwhile being carried in the usual fashion on her back, She said she sold on credit, too. THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 123 chased in other towns. The markets that are frequented regularly (table 43), are those of Pana- jachel itself; of Sololé, an hour by foot to the north; of San Andrés, an equal distance to the east; of San Lucas, across the lake; of TecpAn and of Patztin, a day’s walk to the east; of Patulul and Chicacao, on the “‘coast’’ to the south; of Quezal- tenango far to the west; and of Guatemala City. Occasionally, for annual fiesta markets, local Indians visit other towns such as Chichicaste- nango, San Pedro, Atitlin, and so on; but rela- tively few go and not at all regularly. On the other hand, although few are real merchants who regu- larly buy in 1 town to sell in others, only 13 (all landless) of the 155 households never regularly sell anything. They frequent markets for buying purposes, of course, but take nothing to sell. Three of them are ‘‘foreign’’ Indians (2 Totoni- capén, 1 San Pedro) with special trades; the others are for the most part families whose adults work as laborers and domestics for other families, Ladino or Indian. In some cases the women could, were they ambitious as some others, buy produce to sell, but they do not. TABLE 43.—Number of households habitually represented by vendors in various markets Number of Markets households Households having no regular vendors. .._....-.--------------- 13 Households represented by vendors in: — Panajachel market only Panajachel and Solol4 markets--__ Panajachel and San Andrés marke Panajachel and Tecp4n markets__ Panajachel and San Lucas markets--- Panajachel and Guatemala City markets___- Panajachel, Solol4, and San Andrés markets_ Panajachel, Solol4, and Tecpan markets____- Panajachel, Sololé, and San Lucas markets -_ Panajachel, Tecpan, and Patzfin markets____..---..-_- Panajachel, San Lucas, and Guatemala City markets__ Panajachel, Solola, Tecpan, and San Lucas markets---- Panajachel, Solola, Teecpan, and Patztin markets_..-- Panajachel, Solol4, San Andrés, and Tecp4n markets_ Panajachel, Sololé, Tecpin, and Guatemala City mar Panajachel, San Lucas, Chicacao, and Patulul__--- Panajachel, Tecpin, and Guatemala City__.____- Panajachel, Chicacao, Patulul, and Guatemala City. Panajachel, San Lucas, and Patztin markets____-_-___- Panajachel, Sololé, San Andrés, Tecp4n, and Patztin___--- Panajachel, Solola, San Andrés, Tecp4n, PatzGn, Quezal- STUER) errata Panajachel, San Andrés, Tecpfin, Chicacao, Patulul, Quezaltonanipor. one ee ease nore ene enone aees 1 en ee ee ee ee eas) =] Total number of households:.--.-=<=----222-2--<- 5-225: 155 THE LOCAL MARKET The 142 households that dispose of their produce in markets are all represented by sellers more or less regularly vending in the local market. Except for three recent cases of men selling in the market (including a young boy, but all equally criticized) these families are represented in the market only by their womenfolk. Table 44 and the derived summary of table 45 (the results of a spot check at stated times over a period of weeks) give a precise picture of when local women tend to sell in the local market and what, during one season at least, they bring.“ Most women come to market at least several times during the week, for an hour or two, morning or afternoon, some of them regularly on certain days at the same time, others only occasionally. Sunday is ‘market day”’ when as many as a hundred local women come, usually only for the morning but often for the whole day, going home at noon for a quick lunch.” Sunday is also the day when the women do much of their purchasing for the week from the mer- chants of other towns who come. The next best selling days are Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, when (en route to or from the Tuesday and Friday market days in Solol4) merchants stop and buy local produce. The number of women coming to sell on these days rises from a dozen to as many as 30. Besides those who sell fruit and vegetables, there are two Panajachelefias vendors of coffee and prepared foods; this business is not prominent because a resident Nahualefia keeps a restaurant in a corner of the market place, and a woman originally of Concepcién regularly sells food at the entrance of town and often in the market place. %® Sunday forenoons are not included; count of the large Sunday market was made but once; the results (table 50) are discussed in section on Consumer Goods (pp. 133-154) because the Sunday market is important for shoppers. Ladina women are not included in the table; ‘‘Foreign’’ Indian women resi- dent in Panafachel are included, except for the Nabualefia restaurateur and the proprietor of the butcher shop. % One wealthy woman regularly makes two trips to the Sunday market with large baskets of fruits and vegetables. She is notoriously a shrewd woman and is said always to sell out at good prices. One Sunday (December 6, 1936), Rosales noted that she brought large baskets of tomatoes, sweet cassava, sweetpotatoes, beans, cabbages, onions, oranges, limas, peaches, etc. It happened that no Atitecos came with fruit from the coast, and this woman had a fleld day: the Ladinas surrounded her and bought her out at good prices (peaches, for example, at three for a cent). She hired other women to go to her house for more fruit to sell. THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2/b-22/¢ “ur “dg 9-0¢/e “ur “dg x “ABpIMIVBS 1 77777 poomypoyd ade10A0q vIOD y4iod-4}1M-saTvurey, a ogee See "777" ="s91vureL, BABSSBI JOIMS PIHOOD) ~-ysenbs payoo9 ~"sZUI[YoV10 piv'yT adesnes poolg be spe pean a To ylOg suBaq sayoo “Tr 7 > enhing ~~>-8970fi0 i ilpaoe = -"--"""serTpodes o31q A ~--~sel[iIpodes-sso1p Sal (sae dae! [abe ee ee “eas, u109 Falco e| hee ee caren s90j}vjOdyaamg scan] (ated PANS eta 77>" """"Sqia Ae | se eee ““solaeqoysnyy T= """"S90}BUO J, eget siaddoed uaain ca (eae oid be dalg sare eran eaerees |) 4 61-9 G ~-eduqqeg ~"SoysIpey x x x x Xk) |X) =z x x x) x |e |x 9|21|/8|9|ze| Fb /otjzt}6]9]/#]/O}e]8)/9]9)9]er| 6}IT} 9] F] F |et/ er) 6 M|L/Wirs} dT] 0] MA) LI Ws} a] Lb) MAM) LD] Wirs} ao] ] A) DPS) ot] Do) Mb donpolg 6I-€1/g “ur “dF z/F-Le/e “und g 6-£/p “ta dT €C-LI/p ‘WOON 08—F2/F “OH “8 IT L-1/p “UL 8 OL 124 UAOYS O}8P PUB OUI} 4B SIOPUAA JO JOqUINU pozorpuy Aq donpold jo uONGIySIC (Z86]) Uasmom upipuy 70907 fiq yaysvu jyayonlpung 9y} 0} 7y6n01q vINpOLy— Fp ATAVI, THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 125 TaBLE 45.—Summary of Panajachel vendors in weekday market (1937) Number of women vendors counted Time of day | Date Sat- Tota}| Mon-| Tues-| Wednes- | Thurs-| Fri- | [)7. day | day day day day da y 5 M) 7 9 0 5 4 9 12 12 1 0 6 i 9 13 4 4 6 8 3 0 6 5 9 12 10 4 24 6 8 17 6 20 32 6 6 16 14 20 25 1 4 tf 5 8 30 5 48 89 66 86 | 122 32 While their husbands or brothers are off to dis- tant markets, or doing the heavy garden work, good wives (or sisters or daughters) bring to mar- ket the produce of the fields—onions, garlic, oranges, limas, and avocados, and so on, and thus do their bit selling where they can. Needless to say, selling in the market has its social and pleas- urable aspects. Wives of rich men rather than of the poor are those who come to sell in the market during the week—partly because they are not needed in the fields, partly because they do not take longer trips to other markets. Although men do not sell or even frequent the local market place, they often bring to the doorway the mer- chandise to be sold by their wives and daughters. The number of women who come to the market varies not only with the day of the week, and also with the season, but also with the time of year with respect to the religious calendar. During a fiesta in Solola, for example, with its accompanying large market, few women frequent the local market place; they have gone to Sololdé, and so have most potential buyers. On October 4, the local titular fiesta, they bring to market prepared food and refreshment rather than ordinary prod- uce. The only time of the year when there is no market at all is during the last of Holy Week, especially Holy Thursday and Good Friday. OUTSIDE MARKETS Needless to say, most of the produce of Pana- jachel eventually reaches markets in other towns. Much sold at retail in the local market is bought by merchants who resell it elsewhere, and all that outsiders buy in wholesale quantities from indi- vidual producers is exported. However, most Panajachel Indians themselves market their prod- uce in other towns, close and far. There is no shame attached to selling by either sex in other towns. Some travel to several markets at regular intervals, and devote a large proportion of their time to such merchandising. Others, for the most part those with larger landholdings, sell at whole- sale to outsiders who come to Panajachel (or to other Panajachelefios to take abroad) or in smaller quantities in nearby markets. Of the 155 Indian households, 110 regularly sell local produce in markets of other towns. It must be emphasized that table 43 lists only regular visits (weekly, biweekly, or monthly) recognized by the community in general. Other markets are occasionally visited, and many more households are occasionally represented in the towns listed.” Not only do certain households habitually go to certain markets, but particular members of the households are generally known to go (table 46). Thus, the Solol4 market is a family market, the household frequently going en masse on Fridays. Thus, also, the only markets that women generally attend at all are those of Solola and San Andrés. The more distant markets are frequented by indi- vidual men, a man and his son, or two or three brothers of the household. But also, while certain members of the family patronize one series of markets, others as regularly attend others. Thus, while the husband may sell in Tecp4n or on the coast, his wife may go to San Andrés. It is because of this duplication that the 110 households that sell in outside markets are actually repre- sented by 149 vending groups. Most produce taken out of town is grown by the vendor (table 46) but the proportion is much less than in the case of the local market, for many people make businesses of buying produce from others here (in rare cases from other towns) to sell in distant markets. In general it may be said that the rich sell only their own goods, and the poor, not having much of their own, have to buy at least some of what they sell. So also merchan- dise that is bought tends to go to the more distant 100 Especially during their annual fiestas, when even the smallest of towns attract merchants. Thus, for example, the village of San Jorgé has no regular market, but on January 24 many vendors go there. In 1937, when that day fell on Sunday, the Panajachel market was very small because so many of the usual vendors had gone to San Jorgé instead. 1 Also generally on fiesta occasions. Thus, on the days of their Saints, such towns as Patzin are patronized by many more Panajachelefios than are indicated in table 49. During Holy Week the whole marketing pro- gram is altered, for different towns traditionally celebrate days of that week and of Lent by extraordinarily huge markets which attract special numbers of merchants. In 1937, for example, there was a great market in Tecp4n, on March 22, and one in Solol4 next day. Chichicastenango regularly has a very large market on Palm Sunday. 126 THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE TaBLE 46.—Constitution and source of produce of vending groups in outside markets Number of vending groups 3 ale Vendors and source of produce ES & S a r= 3 io) a\a 2/5 ‘a le g/s ailfti) 2 its 1 Bought produce. ___.-.----.-- EP i We ey UO a a 1 markets, because men who make long trips tend to be poor or at least poor in land. Wealthy fami- lies do not sell in distant places both because they have much to do at home and because they do not need to travel for a living.®? The common means of getting to market is walking, men carrying their loads on their backs, women in baskets on their heads. When man and wife (or the whole family) go, the husband carries the larger part of the load, and sells the more important things, although where a woman is known to be a better vendor, she is apt to sell the large items instead. They also take turns selling to allow each some time for buying or loafing. Exceptions to the rule of walking to market are the cases of San Lucas and the coast towns, where canoes and public launches are used to cross the lake, and Guatemala City, to which public truck- busses are patronized by all except one man and his son, who still walk. In the cases of 11 house- holds that own horses or mules, the beast carries the major burden and the merchant walks beside him, carrying an additional small load. The big day in the Solola market is Friday; a secondary market day is Tuesday. Most Panajachel Indians leave early in the morning and spend the better part of almost every Friday there. A few go also on Tuesdays. Not all go to sell: 101 With reference to the “good old days’ it is often said that the people were rich and “didn’t have to make long business trips.” It is said that some rich people died without ever having seen even Atitl4n across the lake; although there were means of travel, they said that they did not have to know distant towns. 103 For a good description of the Solol& market, see McBryde, 1933. they do much of their buying in Solol4; persons with political business in Solol4 usually choose Friday to do it; and many go just for a holiday. Still} it cannot be doubted that more Panajachel produce is sold in Sololaé than in any other market. Solola is an important wholesale center; merchants from various towns buy produce there in quanti- ties, for resale, and Panajachel men habitually bring large quantities of fruit and vegetables to Solola in addition to that brought by other mem- bers of the family. Furthermore, while to more distant markets (such as Guatemala City) some of the Panajachelefios carry produce of other towns, practically everything they sell in SololA is Panajachel produce, most of it grown by the vendors themselves. Solola is not only a ‘family market’ for Pana- jachelefios but a greater number of families (69) are represented there exclusively than at all other outside markets together. They include all classes of people—rich and poor, Panajachelefios and “foreigners.” Sololé in some ways as much as Panajachel is the market center for Panajachel- eos. Although San Andrés is no more difficult of access than Sololé, only 13 Panajachel households send vendors there. Its market days, Sundays and Tuesdays, conflict with those of Panajachel and Sololé. Unlike Solol4, which is a market center, most produce is sold in small quantities for San Andrés consumption. Since only small amounts of onions and garlic can be consumed by those who patronize this market, Panajachelefios take more fruit than vegetables. As at home, the women tend to do the selling. Men often accom- pany their wives, but rather to buy corn to bring home than to sell produce. Those who patronize the San Lucas market regularly almost always take the water route.'’™ Both canoe-owning Panajachelefios are among the regular San Lucas vendors;' the others rent canoes or occasionally go by launch. Perhaps, therefore, a dislike of travel in canoes keeps women from San Lucas. But its market days also coincide with those in Solola which is pre- ferred for other reasons. It seems also that the 10¢ The trip by land is not only more arduous, but it takes longer. Never- theless, when a canoe is not available or when the water is rough, the mer- chants do occasionally walk, A number of such cases were noted. 108A third canoe-owner is a half-Ladino; culturally Ladino, the family does not sell produce in the markets (nor is it included in Indian in this study). THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 127 San Lucas market was never patronized by Pana- jachelefios (until recently when the canoes were purchased) except when they passed through on longer trips to the coast. Therefore it is not traditionally a market for other than men. The trip to San Lucas and back is a full day by canoe, from early dawn to afternoon. None of the present-day vendors go on from there to the coast markets, even though two of them are full-fledged middlemen who buy produce both in Panajachel and San Lucas. The chief ‘‘coast’’ markets patronized by Pana- jachelefios are Patulul and Chicacao, in the plantation country. After crossing the lake in canoes or launches early Saturday, the merchants stop at towns and plantations along the way and sell in the Sunday market of either Patulul or Chicacao. They stop at plantations on Saturday and Sunday evenings when the laborers are at home, and return Monday afternoon to Pana- jachel. On the coast, they travel at night by kerosene lamp, candles, or pitch-wood torches. Panajachel onions, garlic, green beans, cabbages, beets, etc. are in considerable demand, but in recent years much trade of Panajachel merchants has been taken away by the people of Solola, Concepcién, Atitlan; Santa Catarina Palapo, and San Antonio, who either grow vegetables also or make a business of buying them in Sololé and selling them on the coast. To Tecpan also only men regularly go, leaving at noon or early in the afternoon of Wednesday to arrive in the evening or more usually early Thurs- day morning and have the whole day Thursday (which is the big market day there) in which to sell. Then they often return late Thursday (if they leave Tecp4n at noon) or very early Friday morning, reaching home in time to go up to the Sololé market. Many went to Tecpan, especially during Lent to sell vegetables, for Holy Week, before other towns (especially Solol&) began to grow and sell so many of the same vegetables. A great deal of fruit, especially oranges and limas, is also taken to Tecpan. Fewer men (and some of the same ones) go to Patztin than to Tecpan, taking the same produce. Here again competition has reduced the numbers. The big market day at Patztin is on Sunday. Vendors go late on Saturday and return early Monday. Although truck-bus lines pass directly from Panajachel to Patztin, they are not patronized because (since they do not run on Sundays) the merchants would have to leave Panajachel early Saturday. Furthermore, they often stop in God- ines on the way to sell for awhile, and the trucks do not pass through at the right time. Women do not go to Patztin, partly because they can sell in the local market on Sunday while their husbands are away. The truck-bus service to Guatemala City takes half a day each way.’® Before it was available, fully 8 days were often necessary, 6 for travel and 2 for selling. Now the round trip takes no more than 3 days, for the merchant can sell even on the afternoon of the day on which he leaves Panajachel. Yet less people go now than formerly, because with the quick and easy service, people from all over bring onions and vegetables, and prices are sometimes very low. Few Panajachelefios take even pepinos to the capital despite the great demand in season and the virtual growing monop- oly enjoyed by Panajachel. The reason (or result) is that Indians of other towns make a business of buying them in Panajachel to sell in the city. Although onions, garlic, pepinos, and other fruit of less importance are the principal Panajachel products taken to the Capital, one local Indian has worked up a seasonal trade (wholesale) in onion seed. He buys the seed in Panajachel to sell to customers in Guatemala City and Mixco. In only one case does a man take his wife with him regularly on such long trips. A progressive young Indian takes his wife to Guatemala City (on the bus), probably more because she wants to go than because it is especially good business. The best market days in both Guatemala City and Quezaltenango are Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. To Quezaltenango the Panajachel vendors go on foot, requiring 4 days for the whole trip. The usual route passes through Nahuala, where vendors often stop on Sunday, on the way up or back, to sell. The principal products taken are onions, green beans, avocados, oranges, jocotes, and cintula. Again, competition by others, chiefly Sololatecos, has reduced the number of Pana- jachelefios on this route.” 106 The fare for Indians on the bus was as low as 75 cents one way, with cargo, during the period of study. Later, competition brought it as low as 40 or 50 cents. 107 Of course both Guatemala City and Quezaltenango have sources of supply other than the region of Pansjachel. McBryde, 1947, discusses sources and trade routes at length. 128 THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE On all long trips, food is taken from home to warm and eat on the way. To keep down expenses, merchants often take food for as long as a week,'® young men (who prefer to buy along the way or eat in restaurants) less than their elders. Gener- ally even for a day’s trip, as to Solola, at least some food is taken along, perhaps supplemented by purchase. Only on a half-day trip no lunch is taken. Nights on the road are generally spent in the porticos of public buildings in towns on the way, or in private houses where lodging (i. e., a place under a roof to sleep) can be purchased for a penny or a half-cent or a gift of a fruit or the like. Traveling Indians do not usually sleep in the open. To prepare food, they usually build a fire unless they are in a place where they can use someone else’s fire. A particular convenience to merchants is the custom by which they can leave property reco- mendado in the houses and stores of the towns that they visit. This means that a merchant who is unable to sell his goods one day can, without charge, leave it with some acquaintance and return for it the next day or, if nonperishable, the next week. There is generally no charge for such stor- age. It is also the general custom in the market place to leave purchases recomendado with another merchant while shopping for more or doing busi- ness in other parts of the market, or town. Panajachelefios take their produce to be sold, and return either empty-handed or with consumer purchases. They do not buy products to bring back for resale. To this rule there were in 1936 and 1937, a half-dozen exceptions. One man brought fruit from Guatemala City to sell in Pana- jachel and frequently in other towns; another (with his wife) brought from the capital a variety of merchandise to sell in Panajachel and elsewhere and also fruit from San Lucas to sell elsewhere. rg Official Occasion Amount Per person Total Each of 2 fiscales_. New Year’s $1. 60 $1. 60 $3. 20 Each of 2 sacristans c 5.7 5.70 11. 40 . 40 IF Gs Si SRM ee eR ele Ee oe SSRN oc 9.31 9.31 iP sage 3.17 ef alm Sunday-- - 47 1) PRON QUA TOPIC OL CS an mma eee ee een \San Buenavent 3.17 } 3. 64 14. 56 Each of 4 mayores. . 40 . 40 1. All alguaciles_......-..--..- di ete eros 1.0 7.67 Outgoing cofrade and each of 3 mayordomos of cofrade San San Joaquin_._.__- &: es 25.05 100. 20 Francisco. San Francisco de Asis 6. 09 Octave of San Francisco de Asis 4. 50 San Joaquin 3. 48 Incoming cofrade of cofrade San Francisco.__..-.-..-------- San Nicolas... -..------..-.- - ee ee a if 36.92 36. 92 WA GB OUIS ate ear ee ee ee 3.97 Each of 3 incoming mayordomos of San Francisco_..------- ire Souls etapa Se \ 10. 70 32.10 Ae Eridey. Of Lente 222022 an. concn sccoescewe sc cescneesee 7.06 Outgoing cofrade and each of 2 mayordomos of cofrade Holy a Pe ane eoaan saat a0 14. 27 42.81 Sacramento. PonpusiOhristi.2 a ee ee 6.90 Holy SStUrda Ye cence cane rat eee ae ose noon nee neues 2.10 tASCONSIONS -2 (ace scncese pas ea noe aes een ate 22.74 Incoming cofrade of cofrade Sacramento_____.--..---------- eed i ats Gite eases y me 55.81 55.81 Manet rancisco: devASise2— S52 os 8 os oe ease awe 9. 53 AN Souls! 23. Soseanct sesceccsetecewcaus sa seasauscenseace 5.02 Corpus Christi_.--.-- en ee ee 9. 00 Each of 2 incoming mayordomos of Sacramento-___----__-- (serge Sei irks ae cd i re 30. 97 61.94 A S0UIS oe Sceccc ens sccetanccecn ds ccanccs con ceeee Soca nas 5.02 I DIDRANY2ocaes era seen cr oe teens eee een see tee 5. 63 fe} VIB ia ee Bib 2 eRe Bae oe ec ese -10 utgoing cofrade of cofrade Santa Cruz_...-.--------------- Holy Saturday_...............-.-.ss sss sss seese seen “OL 6. 34 6.34 Ma y-of the; Crosss= <=. oe oe nc ee .40 Spiny tis case cabenioe es cncesde neue oc eeeeeuEaaee uaa ee 5. ' Each of 2 outgoing mayordomos of cofrade Santa Cruz-__--- Holy oe Sees ‘21 6. 73 13. 46 ‘Baster’ Sunday <= -<. 3.2 -) oe ee ee . 40 DaViOr the lOTOsssosene es gee ee ee eae ee ne .40 Each of 2 incoming mayordomos of cofrade Santa Cruz_-_-- ee a a ue 12.76 25.52 Second’ Friday of en6:? 22222 2225-0325. -sbateescc etc se 55 Outgoing cofrade and each of 2 mayordomos of cofrade San Se SN te ae ose ; 4 6. 24 18.7. Nicolas. GTNON NCD ase ere ne ae ee ee ee 41 Incoming cofrade of cofrade San Nicolas_.___-.------------- tee qonqulas 3 son aeeea tee a te 10.34 10. 34 Each of 2 incoming mayordomos of cofrade San Nicolas_---|-___- (6 (0 cols tS = ar CES cn Dee era a gy 5-5 re 5. 66 5. 66 11.32 All hich official: inci Epiphany. +------------------ 12. 00 62. 00 igh officials and principales__....---.------------------ Corpus Christi............-.---.-.-.-.--2--sssssssesese ee 50.00 |{----------- 52. Petitet Dales (12) concdeese---scs2suesenGenctuceessnereue~=was “ye I SU seek 8S ane aA as a eee eee z oe woesesaesen= 2.93 Cross-planters (principales) «-------------+-2+----0-+2-----+ Nod: Friday. SOUT) 60 [eres 2, 80 SPINGETILO MOAN COTS seen en san Snape cane ose anneeeen eae co precios hen eee e a ciasdconscon 5.00 ayiolithe | Gross! sso sen 4 oe ha a f . Rocket burners. -~----------------------------------------- San Francisco Caracciola_.......---.---------------------- : } a aaa a 4.80 3. 50 fe tere ee 35.13 28. 63 | ee ne en ee eo ee eee oe mee aie ee ae I eeceae Sse 584. 87 180 for using the cemetery and getting the official registration ($0.17) remaining constant. An in- formant calculated the cost of a funeral at $16.67. The greatest cost is always that of the liquor con- sumed by the mourners and those who help open the grave, etc., and the official in charge. The few cents buried with the body in at least some cases are not included. Nor is the cost of pro- tracted drinking that frequently follows a death; this cost is attributed to “secular” drinking. The cost of sickness—not including the value of the time lost, which will be calculated in the next chapter—is seen to be considerable. These figures are less authentic than the foregoing because I have no independent data on the number of the sick during a year. However, the number of cases of local shamans and curers has already been calculated, and one can judge the cost of drugs from the data of the sample families, so that a calculation can be made without knowing 166 In 1941 an informant described a funeral whose participants are usually sober people. Both men and women drank. By the time the funeral pro- cession began, 3 rounds of liquor had already been passed among the twenty- odd relatives and friends; a liter was taken to the cemetery and consumed; and back at the house another 2 liters were drunk before the visitors left for the night. The next morning 11 persons did away with 3 liters more, and of course on the following day there was hangover to be cured with more liquor. In this case the drinking did not long continue partly because the men are not ‘‘drinkers’”’ and partly because the deceased was a very old widow and there appeared to be no great grief involved. THE LEVEL AND COST OF LIVING the total number of cases of all kinds of sickness in a year.’ The liquor, incense, and candles referred to is chiefly that consumed by the shamans in their divinations and rituals; but food and liquor are sometimes brought to the patient by friends and relatives. The other shamanistic rituals are those for finding lost articles, getting luck for a business venture, and so on. Twenty cases in a year seems a good guess, though it is not more than a guess. To ask for a wife for one’s son, or a godparent for one’s child; or to ask for a loan of money, even with land as security, or that a document or a bargain be witnessed or a letter written—to ask any “favor’’ it is customary to accompany the request with a gift of food, and sometimes liquor. Most of these gifts have already been included in such items as marriage, baptism, etc., but the resi- due is accounted for under “gifts and favors.’ Likewise there are here included the periodic gifts to godparents, usually presented during certain festivals, and the occasional gifts of food to rela- tives and friends. The calculation of the value 161 The shaman’s fee {s calculated at 50 cents a “‘treatment.’’ I have cases where it fs less (when {t is explained that the shaman was a “friend” and wouldn't charge much) and one case in which a Ladino ‘‘doctor” of another town charged a woman $15 (and still she died). Nonshaman curers take no cash fees. TABLE 71.—Expenditures for public rituals Expenditures Occasion | — Total Food Liquor Incense Candles Rockets Other ING Wo CAE Sa 2s alas ids noo Poa menineias gadcbeinisemcoocic aeeesaaeees $14. 60 S11) 20) ioe. See aes | poe ome |e See | ee ree Epiphany........-..-- 32. 29 20.16 $0. 33 $0. 50 $1.60 1 $3. 40 First Friday of Lent-- 21. 12, 24 33 . 50 1.60 2.40 Second Friday of Lent- 16.6 8.16 . 62 50 1,60) |2oceceeen see MWar chip 22-2523 wé 4.00 . 03 02 - 80 $1.40 Lazarus Sunday -.-- . ue Palm Sunday____._-_- Be: 1, 60 2 Good Friday...-..-- : 3. 20 4 Holy Saturday_.___- ; 4,80 74 1.20 52 42.50 Easter Sunday -__- , (80H eee eee ode eee oes Seeea se tees ae Day of the Cross__ 54. 8 24. 24 . 66 1.00 2. 40 54,20 San Isidro.___-.--- Ei 3 [ore me cl Ppa eer 33 - 60 1.60 2.40 Ascension__--..------- 22. 12, 24 33 - 50 - 80 6 3.00 San Francisco Caracciola. 29. 12. 24 - 99 1.10 3. 20 73.70 Corpus Christi__._...._- 102. 71 74.48 . 66 1.00 4.00 56.60 Octave of Corpus Christi 22. 12, 24 33 50 2.40 21.20 San Buenaventura--._- 15. 8.16 . 66 60 1. 60 2.80 H 8.00 30 40 004 aoc eee 40. 20. 80 . 66 1,00 2. 53 2.80 81. 25, 28 1.99 2. 20 12. 80 917.50 44.92 20. 40 66 1.00 4,80 21,60 AINS ous eke s eos c locas nese 30.94 16. 32 . 66 1.00 4.80 22.40 Re cistinas 2292 en et eo eae eae naeeed 16.92 8.16 33 50 1,60 280 vB o8 -) ee ee ea oe ae ae ae See Rea Se 584, 87 149. 80 309. 92 10. 86 14. 42 49.17 50. 70 1 $0.40 to drum-flageolet players; destiny of $3 (public contributions) not known to me. 2 To drum-flageolet players. 3 $0.40 to drum-fiageolet players; $1 for purchase of drum by new alguaciles from old alguaciles. 4 $2 the Priest's fee; $0.50 for the Pricst’s breakfast. $3 for hire of a marimba band, $1.20 for drum-flageolet players. 6 Hire of a marimba band. 1 $2 the priest's fee; $0.50 for his breakfast; $1.20 for drum-flageolet players. § $5 (estimated) for purchase and rental of clothing by ‘ Negrito” dancers; $1.60 for drum-flageolet players. * $6 the priest's fee; $8 for hire of a band; $1, rental of house; $0.50, hiring of a cook for the band; and $2 for drum-flageolet players. THE LEVEL AND COST OF LIVING 181 of the gifts is based partly on the sample and partly on independent knowledge of the gift- giving occasions (something like 200 gifts are probably exchanged annually) and the content of such gifts (on an average, 10 cents bread, 3% cents sugar, and 5 cents chocolate; or about 35 cents worth of corn and meat foods). When, because of a funeral, a ritual, or a fiesta, the Indians drink, they frequently keep on drink- ing for several days. It is difficult to draw a line between drinking in purely secular contexts and this ‘‘aftermath” drinking, for men who like to drink seek any occasion and of course take advantage of times when drinking is socially most expectable. It is rather rare for Indians to drink when occasion demands. Nevertheless, ordinary drinking is common enough to be economically important. People who like liquor (and of course some like it better than others) succumb when they go to markets out of town and especially when they visit fiestas,’ when there is emotional dis- turbance,” or, less frequently, simply when friends meet and one invites the other to a drink. It is certain that some men consume, besides that in rituals, as much as 20 bottles (worth $20 or more by the glass) a year. Excepting the Protes- tant converts, there are no teetotalers. Every man probably drinks three or four times a year and may drink oftener. An informant listed 19 men as “heavy” drinkers (those who, when they drink, keep drinking for a week or longer). Al except three of these men were relatively wealthy, 168 The following seems typical: The man who became Indian Alcalde in 1941 is not a ‘‘drinker.’’ Yet when he assumed office he of course drank at the ceremony at his house. When the guests left (he says) ‘I stayed at home until about 5 p. m., then met the other two regidores in the juzgado. We contributed 8 cents apiece and went to the store to drink a fourth liter. Then we went to my house and drank half the liquor remaining from the ceremony. I was pretty drunk, but had a little supper, and the next morning had hang- over [locally a sickness that must be cured with a drink] and took one drink. At about 8 o’clock the other regidores arrived and we finished the other half of the left-over liquor and went to the juzgado. One of the regidores then invited us to drink, and he bought a half-liter; the other then bought a quar- ter-liter and then, drunk, we went to our homes, The next morning I had hangover and sent for liquor. After breakfast I went to the fuzgado; it was not my week, but the regidor suggested that I come and, besides, I had to end my hangover. I returned home early and went to bed.” 14 very poor Indian and his wife and 12-year-old daughter reported on their return from a selling trip to Patzfin that they had spent about $1 on liquor there, ‘‘all because the busband likes to drink.”” (He became drunk, the wife less so; even the girl drank some.) 170A Panajacheleno plantation worker had been widowed recently and left with three children. He was lonesome and sought the 16-year-old daughter of a fellow worker for a wife. She accepted (he said) but her father refused. Thinking to win him with liquor, he drew $2 from his employer and went to Solol4 where he bought four bottles. On his return he ‘‘began thinking about my late wife and also my late mother and took a drink.’’ When we found him on the road he had only a half bottle left, but he explained that one bottle had been stolen in the night. (The stolen bottle seemed to be his and his brother’s chief concern.) all except two were old principales, and four were shamans, and it is evident that men become drinkers partly because of long and _ habitual ritual use of liquor. According to the same informant, there once were women “‘drinkers”’ as well, but, “‘Women nowadays are ashamed to drink; those who do not drink speak ill of them when they do. Female mayordomos, when they receive their year, are forced to drink, and then they keep on drinking for 2 days.” PERSONAL EXPENSES, TAXES, ETC. Table 72 concludes the inventory of expendi- tures supposedly incurred by the Indian com- munity in 1936 with items of a personal and legal nature. The item of secular drinking in table 71 is also a personal expenditure, of course, but, as has been seen, liquor has many other uses. Most men smoke in moderation, and women will smoke occasionally, but rarely if ever buy tobacco. Men smoke both cigarettes and cigars (and very rarely pipes made in other towns) but the older men usually buy cigars, the younger men cigarettes. The small amount of tobacco used by the No. 58 family in 1936 was a reflection of its tendency towards Protestantism, since the missionaries dis- courage the use of tobacco as well as liquor, and in later years none at all was used. In 1936 the only smoker was the head of the family. Photographs are occasionally made for the Indians by traveling photographers at festivals. Only men and boys have their hair cut, and almost always by barbers. The local Indian barber is less patronized than the outside Indian barbers who come on market day and who are found in Solol4. Every man between the ages of 18 and 60 is required to work on the highway for 2 weeks (12 days) each year; instead of working he may pay the sum of $2. It could be determined from local treasury records how many men worked and how many paid in 1936, but this was not done. The fixed rate of $1 for 6 days happens to be the prevailing labor rate in Panajachel, so that one who works for others finds it economically as easy to pay as to work. The wealthier Indians prefer to pay, since they are able to and find it more profitable to spend the time on their own lands; the poorer people more frequently work, partly because a dollar in cash (the work is divided into semesters) is often more than the liquid assets 182 THE LEVEL AND COST OF LIVING available at one time. Many Indians sometimes work and sometimes pay, depending upon circum- stances at the time. No. 49, who frequently does his road work, borrowed the money from me in 1941 because I was paying him more for his time than the standard rate. Frequently laborers will work rather than pay when they work for an employer paying substandard wages. In table 72 I suppose that half of the people work, but take into account the fact that men serving in public office are exempt. This exemption holds also for the ornato tax for public works; this tax must be paid in cash by every man in the given age group. TaBLE 72.—Personal expenses, tazes, etc. Sample expenditures eaaarar to aces Tt m rent Out- | Noss | No. 49| No. 37|Within| side | notar family | family | family munity| °™: y munity (Oh hh a er $0.52 | $1.04 $90 $90 Cigarettes____.-_-- a Pea bescoeeas 130 130 Photographs-.--_-- e 3100 |asssacce 15 15 Haircuts--- 2. 50 36 73 75 Road tax. 4.00 2.00 . 160 320 Ornato tax_- 1.50 - 50 - 50 80 80 Real-estate ta - 60 (2) 75 75 Revenue stamps, stamped paper 3 3 PIGS 25-6 a 50 150 Veh gh] See eee 15 20 fr) «| eee 8.77 4. 50 5.05 267 691 958 1 Value of time. The real estate tax is popularly called the three- per-thousand. I am not sure, but I believe the rate is actually higher. Most landholders do not pay this tax because their land titles are not legally registered with the higher authorities. Most documents must be written on Govern- ment-stamped paper; in addition, every person over 18 is supposed to buy the 10-cent stamp for his or her cédula, or identification paper. Many people do not possess this document.7! The figure here is little more than a guess. A license for canoe owners was also required in 1936; it is not included in the table because I do not recall how much it was. An item for fees paid lawyers (in Solol&4) would also be in order, for in land matters the services of the lawyers in Solola are sometimes bought; but I cannot estimate what the item might have amounted to in 1936. ™1 A poor woman sald in 1937 that she had obtained her cédula 2 years before, grinding corn to earn the 10 cents for the stamp. When she had the money her husband suggested that she rather buy corn with it; what good would a cédula do her anyway? Again in the matter of fines, perusal of official records might be of assistance in determining the amount. Offenders (usually intoxicated persons) are sentenced to a certain number of days in jail, the sentence commutable at so much per day in money. Such fines and jail sentences are levied even in cases of disputes of a “‘civil’’ nature, and when Indians quarrel and bring a case into the Indencia, the result most frequently is the fining of one or both parties. Indians stay in jail if they cannot pay the fine or if the money required is much more than their time is worth;?”? fre- quently they serve several days and then pay for the remainder. The amount of money included in table 72 is a rough guess, based on a number of cases noted. The payment of interest on money borrowed is not as common as the pawning of land without set interest. The matter has been discussed above (pp. 80-81) and, again, the figure in table 72 is little more than a guess. Summary.—Table 73 summarizes the expendi- tures for all purposes, both within and outside the community, of the Indians of Panajachel in 1936. TABLE 73.—Summary of expenditures in 1986 Expenditures Item Within Total the com- poorne munity Housing: building and repairing $263. 33 1 $183, 33 $80. 00 Clothing (including repairing) 4, 640.02 574. 40 4, 065. 62 Food.__- 15, 220. 28 4, 132. 25 11, 088. 03 Supplies, ur 2, 061. 70 450. 00 1, 611. 70 Ceremonies, fiestas, life crises, et 3 2, 080. 40 178. 60 1, 901. 80 Personal, legal, etc 958. 00 267. 00 691. 00 (Lotale. conn odeaan se eco 25, 222. 73 5, 785. 58 9, 438. 15 1 See footnote 135, p. 147. Doubtless some of the labor on Panajachel] Indian homes is done by Indians of other towns, but it is a negligible amount and is not subtracted from the total here. 2 Leaving out the item ‘‘ Food” of table 69, included with Food here. The unknown item of $3, not classified In table 69 either as locally produced or as purchased outside, is here considered as spent outside the community. COMMUNITY WEALTH Most of the wealth of the Indian community is in the land that it owns. Including standing coffee and fruit trees, the value of real estate in private hands amounts to over $20,000. The re- placement value of houses owned by Indians has 172 An Indian reported (1940) that a friend was in Jail for having an unregis- tered rifle—fined $20 commutable to 20 days in jail. ‘‘Maybe It will be reduced to $10, but he will certainly serve time rather than pay. Who would ever pay a dollar a day when one can earn only 10 pesos or 20 cents a day?” In another case two young men were sentenced to 5 days in jail commutable at 20 cents daily (disorderly conduct while drunk); they stayed in Jail 2 days, then borrowed money to pay for the remaining 3. THE LEVEL AND COST OF LIVING 183 been calculated at a little less than $4,000. Thus real property amounts to a little less than $25,- 000—about $158 per family and about $31 per capita. There is little profit in trying to calculate the value of community (public) property such as the church and public buildings and grounds, the roads, etc. These assets, not only solidly frozen but also not potentially usable by individuals, have only academic interest. Eight hundred dollars has been calculated to be the value of domestic animals owned, and $3,000 that of household goods and tools. The annual cost of clothing is $3,900, but the value of the clothing in the possession of the Indians at any point in time is probably closer to $3,500. To the resulting sum of $32,300 might be added, as part of the wealth of the community: (1) The value at a point in time, or the average during the year, of crops standing in Indian fields and stored ready for sale. The value of standing coffee has already been partly included. Other produce on hand varies greatly with the season. Except in the cases of garlic and onion seed, they are very quickly turned into money. It seems more useful to treat this wealth as income balanced by expenditures rather than as a capital asset. (2) The value of food and supplies on hand in the various kitchens of the community. Except in the case of corn in the months after the harvest, the Indians normally have only a few days’ supply of food, and of many items even less. In both cases, the turnover in the course of a year is com- plete, and again such assets are treated only as items of expenditure. (3) The amount of cash on hand. It differs with the season, but not as much as it would in a community where a cash crop is harvested at once. Corn, garlic, onion seed, and pepinos are harvested at particular times; but the much more important onions are harvested throughout the year, and various fruits ripen at different times. Most Indians balance expenditures against receipts with a short interval of time, and cash on hand is both a small and a temporary item. Sizable surpluses of cash can exist only in the case of very few families. A few wealthy families are known to have considerable cash on hand, kept in chests at home (banks are not used); in two or three cases it might amount, at times, to hundreds of dollars. But the rich seem generally to invest their funds in land, and are rich rather in the value of property owned than in cash. I would be surprised to find more than $5,000 in loose cash in the community at any one time, including that which represents a lag between selling and buying, or more than about $2,000 in real savings. Unless one includes the special knowledge of artisans and professionals, there are almost no intangible economic assets. The shamans occa- sionally teach others for a consideration; literacy is @ recognized economic advantage—at least in the negative sense of making flagrant cheating by means of false receipts less likely—and persons who can write receive gifts when they assist others. The labor of persons with reputations for industry and skill in agriculture is in demand and perhaps commands better prices; but there is nothing formalized about this. Finally, there is a manu- script of the ‘conquest’? dance owned by a local Indian, and he was at least once asked to teach the dance (for a consideration) in another town. THE BALANCE OF PAYMENTS The wealth and well-being of the community is better measured in its annual receipts and expendi- tures. Transactions within the community I shall not attempt to estimate. Most such transactions represent labor (for cash) which Indians do for one another. In contrast, there is very little commerce within the community, principally because most of the people produce about the same things. Merchants buy produce less from their neighbors than in the public market, where it is pooled and where its source in relation to its destination is difficult to analyze. Table 74 summarizes the transactions between the Panajachel Indian community and the outside, comparing expenditures and receipts to strike what might be called the balance of payments. The total community expenditures outside the community ($19,544.18) come to $127 per family or $25 per person, receipts ($21,530.91) to $139 per family or $27.60 per person. The difference of over $2,000 between the two totals is such that each family, on the average, gains $12 a year in money or in what money will buy. Since there seems to be no possibility that this is either a paper balance, or represented by increased gold stocks, or anything of the sort, the wealth of the com- munity and its standard of living would seem to be rising. The calculated balance of $2,000, although the result of countless smaller calculations of 184 THE LEVEL AND COST OF LIVING TasBL_e 74.—The balance of payments a, RECEIPTS Consumed a within So Item Total commu- outside nity! Plant gathering. _..--25<4-32--<-2---a= 2 $40. 50 #40. 50 |----.-.--... Hunting, fishing, etc. me 56.00 | 46. 00 $10. 00 Net from agriculture_...---------- 23, 289.79 | 33,834.43 | 19, 455. 36 Net from animal husbandry nA 344. 50 176.00 168. 50 Net from arts and professions---_----- MRCS OO, ace cee 777.05 Labor for outsiders. -.~---------------- 15060. 00 Ponca concn] 1, 060. 00 Net from merchandising nonlocal | | TOOUGE even eee eae ss eoes soe) 60200.) 2-22 2scaecn= | 60. 00 0) 7) Ee a eee eres 25,627.84 | 4,096.93 | 21, 530. 91 b. EXPENDITURES | Produced within Bought Item Total commu- outside nity! LE (0102) 1 ee ee er $80. 00 $80. 00 -| 4,065. 62 4, 065. 62 -| 15,220. 28 11, 088. 03 Supplies, furnishings, etc_ -| 1, 394. 93 5 1, 394. 93 Ceremonies, fiestas, etc... | 1,901. 80 1, 901. 80 Personal and legal, ete___- Z 691. 00 691.00 Markets and travel__...-.---.-------- 322. 80 6 322. 80 yl 0 <2 | kee a aces 23, 676. 43 | 19, 544. 18 c. BALANCE Balance received from outside the community in 1936_......-..-.- $1, 986. 73 ! The value of the labor of members of the community is not included; the totals should be the same in sections a and 6 of the table. 2 This sum (the total of the herbs produced in the community—table 67, c) is chosen rather arbitrarily. Some of the herbs are not entirely wild, and other plants gathered—such as medicinal plants—are not included; but the total figure is still probably not far from the truth, and in any case the total of the table would not be affected by a shift of a few dollars from agriculture to plant gathering or vice versa. 3 The difference between this figure and the total of $5,409.15 of table 38 is the value of the onion seed produced for planting. This seed is planted to produce onions, hence represents a cost as well as a receipt and does not figure in the net from agriculture. : pee ene both agricultural labor (about $1,010) and domestic and other labor. F ae used mainly in agriculture have been subtracted from the total of able 68. 6 Based on careful calculations made on the basis of data in the section on outside markets. (Market taxes, $110.80; bus fares, $112; launch and canoe “ares to outsiders, $40; posada privileges, $10; and extra food and refreshment on the road and in markets, $50.) greater or less difficulty and accuracy, cannot be very far from the truth. There is sufficient reason to believe, first, that the balance is in fact favor- able rather than unfavorable; otherwise the Indians’ lands would be lost or sold to outsiders at a greater rate than is the case, or the Indians would be leaving the community or working much more for outsiders, or the population would be decreasing rather than increasing. It seems unlikely, second, that the balance can be much more than about $2,000; for there is evidence neither of a great rise in the standard of living nor of the piling up of cash reserves. THE STANDARD OF LIVING The “average”? wealth, or income or expendi- tures, in the community gives a very imperfect picture of what conditions among the Indians are. Discussion in Land Ownership and Practices (pp. 57-85) of the distribution of Indian land has already shown the inequalities of the wealth of the various families, and inclusion of other assets besides land makes very little difference in the conclusions drawn. A few families are, by local standards, very rich; and many more very poor. When two informants were asked, independently, to grade all 157 families’ wealth on a scale of from 1 to 100, the dividing line between “rich” and “medium” was set at 70; one informant graded 12 families 70 or over and the other, 23 families. The line between ‘‘medium”’ and ‘‘poor’’ was set at 30; the first informant placed 96 families below that grade; the second, 76 families. Actually, there is quite a difference in wealth between the very richest family and the next, but after that differences are gradual; division into classes is arbitrary, and if proof of that were needed, differ- ences in opinion between the two informants sup- plies it. The results of the informants’ grading are shown in Appendix 3. Discussion of these differences are a main subject of the section on the Significance of Wealth Differences (pp. 191- 204). COMPARISONS It seems to me unprofitable to say much in evaluation of the Panajachel standard of living. The fact appears to be that the average family consumes $160 worth of goods in a year, including the value of the labor required to produce some goods, but that does not mean that the standard of living is necessarily a fifth that of a community— say in the United States—where the average family consumes goods with a value of $800. Three other factors in the difference might be mentioned: First, there is a purely book-keeping matter. The cost of housing in Panajachel has been given as about $1.70 per family, the annual cost of building and repairing houses, including the value of labor. But the rental value of the houses of a family (if they were rented) would be closer to $10 a year and perhaps much more. Likewise the clothing costs have been calculated on the basis of actual cost to the Indians. Pursuing another method of bookkeeping, the value of goods THE LEVEL AND COST OF LIVING 185 consumed by the average family might rise from $160 to $200. Second, there is a difference of prices. A comparison of prices in Panajachel (Appendix 2) with those prevailing in the American community might well show that the $160 or $200 is the equivalent of two or three times that much. The Guatemalan quetzal and the American dollar are pegged in value in international exchange, but a quetzal buys much more in Panajachel than a dollar does anywhere in the United States. And, third, there are important cultural and social differences that make difficult, if not futile, any very broad comparisons. Indian houses are crude (and cheap) structures not necessarily because the people can afford nothing better but also because their culture requires that kind. They use no dairy products (which are expensive) partly, at least, because traditionally they do not like them. They pay little in taxes partly because they get little, but partly because their community is supported largely by their labor. Finally, of course, such wants as for automobiles, radios, motion pictures, electric appliances—while cer- tainly beyond their means—are still quite beyond their culture. Results of the food survey (table 75) show that the Indians are not grossly undernourished. Ex- cept for riboflavin (and lime?) they average at least the recommended quantity of every item analyzed, although this may well be because a TABLE 751.—Comparison of average food intake in rural Guatemala per nutrition unit per day * Food intake by groups in rural Guatemala National a a = alae Research Item 2 | 8 | | 85) Conrey 3 OO lsa—l ma] Om | So | 2.2 ecom 2 | 3h | 2e|\a8|3s | 83 | mended eg | ae octet 3 as allowances hi =| es a 2/3/23 |S |dR/ a4 iWaloriesi-ss-s.-se2-cee5 3,008 |3,093 |2,965 |2,725 |3,076 |3, 004 3, 000 Protein: (mg.)--.--==.-- 72 77 70 56 76 73 70 alcium from food Ug ee ee 264 294 248 214 323 PES! Pea ees Total calcium (mg.) 71) 819 | 898 | 782] 703} 959 800 Tron) (mp:)).--2<---2-.-< 23 22 23] 2l 24 24 12 Vitamin A, value (I. | 09) jena eae aie Ae 2 5, 000 Ascorbic acid (mg.)- 64 7 7 Thiamine (mg.)-- i 3.2 ‘ 2. f 15 Riboflavin (mg.)- = F 1.2 5 ; 1.5 ‘ 2.0 Niacin (mg.)---..------ 14.7 | 15.4 | 14.3 | 12.8 | 17.6 | 14.5 15 1 From tabulations supplied by Miss Emma Reh, of Instituto de Nutricién de Centro America y Panama. 2‘‘Family units are expressed as nutrition unit equivalents of the moder- ately active male, according to the 1945 National Research Council’s recom- mended allowances for specific nutrients by sex, age, and activity.’’ (Quoted from note to table 2B in unpublished F. A. O. report by Emma Reb.) 3 Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of people who partook of the family food during the week, subtracting fractions for meals missed and adding fractions for guests. minority have a better diet and a majority con- siderably worse. Certainly the poorest families fall far short of standard (table 65). In comparison with neighboring towns, there is reason to believe that the standard of living in Panajachel is higher than in most.'7? Of the lake towns, only San Pedro probably has a definitely higher standard.’4 Probably Panajachel is also better off than such communities as Solol& and Chichicastenango. An indirect way of judging such differences is to note how the towns make their living. The Panajachel Indians rarely go to the plantations to work, or to other towns as day laborers. The people of such towns as Santa Catarina and Sololé work outside much more. On the seemingly sound assumption that people are forced by economic necessity to work outside, this is evidence that Panajachel is richer than most neighboring towns. Another way to judge is to examine the day-labor basic pay. In Panajachel it was 16% cents in 1936, in Atitlan only 10 cents, and in Chichicastenango 12 or 13 cents (and down to 10 cents in 1935-38). I do not know of any place in the neighborhood where wages are higher than in Panajachel. If the Indians earn more in Panajachel, they probably spend more. Another point that may be made is that in the past years the Panajachel Indians have not been losing much land to outsiders while in neighboring Santa Catarina, at least, lands were being sold and lost at a high rate. It is also probable that from 1936 to 1940, at least, the standard of living was improving in Panajachel. This was in part due to world economic conditions. In the late twenties Guate- mala (with high coffee prices) was relatively prosperous, and every town got its share—Pana- jachel, certainly, because it grew coffee. When in 118 Comparisons in table 75 indicate that the Panajachel diet is consistently richer than the average Indian diet in the severa] communities studied. Indeed, it falls very little short of the average Ladino diet, and of that of the Ladinos of Panajachel. The only two Indian communities (of 10) that had higher caloric intake were Santiago Chimaltenango and San Pedro la Laguna. By some coincidence the three ‘‘nutritionally best’’ towns are the only three in the sample for which we have general studies of the economy. Santiago Chimaltenango is the subject of Charles Wagley’s monograph, The Eco- nomics of a Guatemalan Village, 1941. San Pedro was studied independently by Juan Rosales and by Benjamin Paul. A volume on the economy of San Pedro, prepared with the collaboration of Julio de Ia Frente, will soon be published (in Spanish). 14 This is a judgment based on general observation. The nutritional data (for a sample of 14 families) bear it out. The results, following the order of table 75: 3,320; 81.3; 322; 1,134; 26; 5,702; 58; 3.8; 1; 16: superior to Panajachel in every item. Curiously, two poor families in San Pedro had a poorer diet than the averages of the poorest families in any other communities, with only 2,449 calories and 54.3 gms, protein. 186 FUNCTIONS OF WEALTH the early thirties the coffee market collapsed, Panajachel along with other towns suffered depres- sion: wages went down, people had to put away their flashlights and wear their clothes longer, and fiesta expenses were drastically cut. But by the time this study began, conditions in the world— and the coffee market—were improved, and times were better in Panajachel. However, Panajachel improved more rapidly than most other towns because of a new source of income—the increase of tourists, both native and foreign, the installation of new hotels and more “country homes”’ on the lake shore, and so on. The tourist business, was, during the period of study, steadily improving, resulting in the opening of new markets for the produce of the town, with better prices, and in a general increase of noncompeting population. There was still another factor that tended to improve conditions in many towns, Panajachel among them. It was the mushroom growth of truck and bus lines. In 1936 there was one com- bination truck-bus plying between Guatemala City and Sololé (passing through Panajachel), making three trips each way every week. In 1937 there were three truck-busses each day in each direction besides others not so regular. Where Panajachelefios walked to Guatemala City and consumed a week to sell a load of onions, they then rode and spent 2 or 3 days to sell a larger load of onions. Competition cut the passenger and freight rates to a point where the saving in time easily made up for the fare. The total result for the region was that more time could be spent on the production of wealth than previously, with less required for distribution of goods. Since it is the Indian population of the country that takes care of distribution, as well as a good part of pro- duction, the Indians with the use of trucks are able to produce more and have more to consume. (In Panajachel that effect was but lightly felt, however, because with the use of trucks the price of onions in Guatemala City went down.) Pana- jachel has the difficulty of very limited land resources, and there is a limit to how much pro- duction can be increased simply with an increase of available time. With closer communications with the Capital and other towns, however, new crops can be raised and marketed. An example is strawberries, which are profitable only if large markets are quickly accessible; experience in 1937 and 1938 showed that dependence upon the local market alone simply brought down the price of the perishable berries when production was increased. It is well to recall again, in any discussion of the relations of production and the standard of living that the Panajachel Indians are quick to learn and to take advantage of new economic opportunities. FUNCTIONS OF WEALTH METHOD This section will tie together parts of the whole book, in terms of the associations of different degrees of wealth with (a) different ways of life and (b) families. It therefore represents a kind of summary of the book, selective as it is; but it adds considerable fact and interpretation. It also attempts to clarify the methods used in the field study. This is an example of a study in a very small society without written records and it may be used to illustrate how in such circumstances data are collected in relation to a problem. In the Indian community of Panajachel, virtu- ally only the landscape and the people, and what the people have done to the landscape, are avail- able for study. Some problems are simply solved: for example, one collects folk tales by getting the Indians to tell stories, or one learns about the techniques of farming by observing and by asking questions. But the answers to many questions are not “in the heads” of the Indians themselves. For example, one cannot ask an Indian ‘‘What is your kinship system?’ Instead, one collects a great variety of genealogical information, and facts about marriage, residence, the behavior of relatives, and the kinship terms in use, and ‘‘works out” the kinship system. Similarly, one cannot ask an Indian ‘‘What is the annual income in the community”; so he must collect records and draw his own conclusions. These things are true about any community. One cannot in the United States, any more than in Panajachel, ask this sort of question except of the sociologist or economist who is willing to collect records on the basis of which to draw con- FUNCTIONS OF WEALTH 187 clusions. The differences are that in the United States one depends upon written records, including information collected by other scholars. In Panajachel such do not exist, except for vital statistics data. Indeed, since the Indian com- munity of Panajachel is not literate, one cannot even collect records by means of questionnaires and thelike. There are no ways, no local censuses. One cannot ask school children to help. Every bit of raw data is personally set down in the hand of the ethnographer—or his wife or any local assistant he might be able to find and train. The compensating quality of the situation is of course that the community is small; it is possible to come to know personally many of its aspects. Despite inherent difficulties, this study pretends to be quantitative, the quantities stated with refer- ence to the whole community, and complete: It is quantitative in that at every point the effort is made to answer the question ‘‘How much?” as well as ‘‘What?,” ‘“Who?,” and‘ How?” It has reference to the whole community in that the object is not to say only what and how much one or several individuals produce and consume, but what and how much the whole community pro- duces and consumes in 1 year. It pretends to be complete insofar as it tries to report not some but all of the community expenditures, in time and money; it purports to inventory all of the time, the money, and the resources of the community. What follows is far from a historical account of what I did in the field. Rather, it is an idealiza- tion; what I would like to have done—or, perhaps, what I like to pretend to have done. My actual fumbling is not worth committing to print; it is enough to have distributed it on microfilm. What follows distills some of what I learned through the experience of doing. Every individual item of method that I mention is honestly enough re- counted. However the order is rationalized, the logical arrangement supplied by hindsight. Suppose now that the reader comes to Panaja- chel (as I did) with some knowledge of the general area. Even a 2-week tourist will know from the regional differences and the money markets, and merchants—which are indeed part of the tourist attraction!—that the economy is something like ours. This is not Melville’s island paradise to be approached as entirely novel. It might take a little longer to discover that there is a system of private ownership, economic rationality, and free enterprise, particularly since tourist guides fre- quently confuse issues. For example, one hears (and reads) that merchants will not sell on the road, but only in markets either because of taboos or because they enjoy the markets; or that the Indians become so used to the burdens that on return from market they substitute stones for the merchandise they have sold. Anybody willing to look will soon see, however, that there are simple economic motivations at work and that compari- sons of this society with our own might be useful and valid. In this context it takes almost no time to note that Panajachel, specifically, specializes in growing vegetables, fruit and coffee and ex- changes the produce for much of what is needed to live that is grown or manufactured in other towns similarly specialized. Settled in Panajachel and making conversation with the Indians it is soon obvious that there are “Tich” and “poor” people; they talk about this difference. Suppose one then asks how rich are the rich and how poor are the poor; how many are rich and how many are poor; whether differences sort out families or instead divide them; whether from generation to generation wealth remains within a family group; how much tendency there is for individuals to become rich during their life- times, or poor; and what the prerogatives of wealth are. Suppose further, that one is interested both in what people say or think about these questions and also what the objective facts are. Suppose, in sum, that without using the terms, one is interested in ‘‘class”’ aspects of differences in wealth. This let us take as a problem area. DEFINING THE COMMUNITY FOR STUDY The first step then is to define the community of people about whom the questions are asked. It is apparent from the beginning—indeed from the census publications—that there are two kinds of people: Ladinos and Indians. Not only are they self-conscious groups, so that people will talk about themselves and others as Ladinos or Indians, but there are obvious signs. Ladinos speak Span- ish as a mother tongue, Indians are those who are at home in an Indian language and who speak Spanish with an accent. Indians wear distinctive and rather colorful costumes; Ladinos, European- 188 FUNCTIONS OF WEALTH style clothes. Ladinos for the most part live in the “center” of town, where there are streets; the Indians are scattered among the gardens and coffee fields. Ladinos are more-or-less educated store- keepers and pharmacists (although some are illiterate and poor and in some ways “live like Indians’’) who live in houses with plastered walls and windows with shutters, and doors with hard- ware and floors covered with tiles, and stoves with chimneys in the kitchen, and so on. On each of these criteria borderline cases may be found, so that none of them can be taken too seriously. For example, for years I kept on my list of Indians several families of ‘Indians’? who had Indian surnames and lived at least half like Indians; members of the family were married to Ladinos; and I finally decided they were best considered Ladinos because they participated socially with Ladinos rather than in the Indian community. When it could be seen that there are two societies, participation became the final test. The critical test of that came to be obligation to serve to the Indian politico-religious system. A family served in the system or it did not. Having established the presence of two societies, the decision had to be made whether to ask our questions about one or the other or both. For purposes here, let us choose the Indians.’ In large part we did in fact choose the Indians. One good reason is that the Ladino society is part of a generalized Ladino society that goes beyond local communities, and it would be difficult to answer our kind of questions by studying the Ladinos only of Panajachel. It is almost equally apparent that there are “foreign” Indians to be distinguished from Pana- jachelefios. They are spoken of as Sololatecos, Totonicapefios, Catarinecos, etc.; they have differ- ent surnames; they wear different costumes (of their towns of origin) and speak dialects different from those of Indians whose families have long been resident in Panajachel. Again, however, the distinctions are not clear-cut. A few Indians of other towns change costume or marry Pana- jachelefios. Some households are ‘‘mixed.” Some of the most typical Panajachelefo families "8 Anthropologists traditionally study Indians (i. e., people of very alien culture) but the tradition has rapidly broken down in recent years. Indeed, during our period of study an anthropologist (Isobel Sklow) joined us especial- ly to study the Ladino community of Panajachel. Recently the Committee on Latin American Anthropology of the National Research Council bas out- lined a program for such studies (Amer. Anthrop., 1949). are descended from immigrant Indians of gener- ations ago. The useful test therefore becomes one, again, of participation. The concept is clari- fied not of a Panajachel Indian society but of a Panajachelefio Indian society; if a family fully participates in its organization and rituals, it is part of the more restricted society. For some purposes we shall be satisfied to study the ‘‘foreign”’ Indians less completely than the Panajachelefios. Having now limited the community concerning which we shall ask the questions posed, the prob- lem becomes one of defining it. Who are the people, how many are they, where do they live, how are they interrelated, etc. ? Any pretense of working by simply checking casual impressions now ends. We must begin to collect records, systematically. The work may be divided into four parts: (1) Taking a house-to-house census, with identi- fication of each of the inhabitants as to ethnic affiliation (Ladino, Sololateco, Panajachelefio, etc.), relationship within the household, approxi- mate age, and so on. (2) Making a careful map on which are spotted all the households. The “spotting” is more difficult than it seems; the first time around, with a Ladino helper, I missed about a third of the Indian establishments hidden from the paths by coffee bushes. The object is to get all of the houses spotted and identified; then the possibility of omission is reduced to those within households. Map and census were made together. Although in another town the officials accompanied me on a tour to get a correct census (with attendant disadvantages), in Panajachel I depended upon Indian friends and a long period of time. After 2 years or more I was still correcting mistakes; but the time came when I never heard of a person I could not easily place and never came upon a house whose whole family I did not know; and although children’s ages, and sometimes the sex of infants were occasionally left undetermined, we had a complete census. (3) Collecting genealogical information which, when put together shows how everybody is (or is not) related to everybody else. The ‘foreign’ Indians were included, as a check on their sepa- rateness. Genealogical information is obtained by asking one’s friends for the names of their siblings and siblings’ children, of their parents and parents’ siblings’ children, grandchildren, etc.; of their FUNCTIONS OF WEALTH 189 great-grand-parents and their siblings, etc., etc., in ever widening circles until they no longer know anything. About each relative one discovers various things in passing (and for many purposes other than the problem under discussion). When one gets enough of these ‘“‘ego’”’ genealogies they are combined to show how all the people in the community are related. Again, it takes years to straighten this out, and perfection is never achieved; in 1941 I discovered (to me) amazing errors in notations on the families that had been closest to us since 1935! With this information added to that on the map, the community is defined: every individual accounted for and known in spatial, temporal, and biological (social) inter- relation. (4) Learning enough about the social participa- tion (among other matters) of every individual and family to know whether and how they fit into the local community; decisions (often somewhat arbitrary) are then made as to inclusions and exclusions from the Panajachelefio community. Thus a limited community at a point in time is fixed for study, a community with respect to which the problem now is as follows. ESTABLISHING WEALTH DIFFERENCES It is not difficult to make a decision as to the social unit to be used. Although it is quickly enough evident that individuals own property, talk about rich and poor individuals breaks down with the first question about whether a wife is richer or poorer than her husband, or whether a son in the family isrich. Those who form a house- hold together are a single unit; wealth differences may be discussed usefully as between households, not individuals, the household defined as the family group sharing a single kitchen, and hence having at least partially a common budget. Nor is it difficult to find a first approximate measure of wealth, for with farmers the obvious one of land owned suggests itself; since those who are said to be rich are also those who are said to own much land, and vice versa, one adopts the suggestion as a hypothesis with hardly a question. Then the first major task becomes to apply this measure: What are the lands involved? The map which was made includes in addition to natural features and houses the boundaries of land ownership and the details of land use, since different lands prob- ably have different value. What was done for the people is now done for the land. The object is to account for every bit of land, regardless of whether owned by Indians, Ladinos, or anybody else, and to understand its use. The areal limit to the community is easy to find because all the land owned by Panajachelefios is in the area im- mediately visible, on the delta and on the hills overlooking the delta, or said specifically to be in Santa Catarina or elsewhere. It is academic that the boundaries of the municipio of Panajachel extend far beyond the part mapped, since the community neither owns nor uses the remainder. The problem now is to determine the land hold- ings of each Indian household. Wherever possible this was done, in course of making the map, by simple pacing. The map should have been ac- curate enough to enable measurements on it; even- tually, it had to be redrawn to be made that accurate, and only after 5 years (the end of the study) could any measurable piece of land be compared with the map without too great shock. As with the people, it was necessary to keep for the map a base time, and through all vicissitudes keep track of who owned what land, and how it was used in May of 1936. Independent of the map, which accounted for all the land, an inventory was made of lands owned by every family in Panajachel. Having made a 4 by 6 slip for each household, I simply ran through them with knowing friends who told me what lands were owned by each. This not only checked information taken the other way, but brought into the picture properties outside the area of the map. Land was the subject of many items of casual information, and again there came the time when most doubts and discrepancies were ironed out. In all hearsay information on lands owned, the vagueness of measures of land (cuerdas of different sizes) added to the usual difficulties. The data on land ownership were never sepa- rated from those on land use, since it was evident that different kinds of land were differently valued. But the question of these differences of value required thorough understanding of: (1) Agricultural practices, the technology and beliefs and practices concerning all aspects of agriculture and husbandry. Systematic inquiry, supplemented by observation, was required, and in addition we had the experience of managing the planting, care, and harvest of an experimental plot. 190 FUNCTIONS OF WEALTH (2) Labor required to yield harvests. This requires general study of the value and use of time; the division of labor and differences in the use and value of the time of different age and sex groups. The problem of the time required for each task in the fields (for which we had the help of a document prepared for the President) involves the relative efficiency of paid and of family labor, of wages and other customary payments to hired help, and so on. (3) Yields. The safest check on statements of informants is to sample and count, measure, or weigh. This is not difficult, once the investigator has friends willing to help. It is easy to count the harvest of onions, garlic, and the like (and corre- spondingly unnecessary to check informants, who are always counting them for sale!), much more difficult with corn which in Panajachel is har- vested for home use and not really part of the commercial complex. (4) Prices, which involve study of the whole market system, the variety of ways in which prod- uce is disposed of, and so on. In a place like Panajachel where commerce is the breath of life, the investigator gets a good deal of this back- ground simply by having to sive, hence cope with it. So much so that I paid too little attention to recording prices; I should have kept a list of commodities on hand as a reminder to collect and systematically note prices at weekly intervals throughout the year, and in different places. Since I did not do this, I could check the knowledge of reliable Indians (which is excellent) only by the instances I happened to have noted, and the few published records available. It now becomes possible to make distinctions between (a) hill land, of relatively little value, in its subdivisions of valueless waste land, cornfield land, and fallow land usable for pasture; and (6) delta land, divided between (1) land that is not irrigable, on which rainy-season cornfield alone can be grown, though being nearly level it is better than hill cornfield; (2) land on which coffee stands; and (3) land on which truck farming is practiced all year. The validity of this classification depends upon all the information suggested above; for example, that the truck-farm land is equally valuable regardless of what happens to be growing on it is a conclusion based on knowledge of agricultural practices, yields, labor requirements, and prices. At this point it is possible to tabulate the amount of land of each significant class that is owned by each household. Now in order to place a value on each kind of land, one returns to the data on yields and prices to see what is produced by the land; but data are also sought on the following: (1) Sale prices, when land is sold. This requires a collection and analysis of cases, with knowledge of the circumstances. One can even test conclu- sions “experimentally” by bargaining for land. (2) Rental values. This requires not only many cases, but a background of much information on rental practices, of which there are a variety. (3) Loan values. The practice of pawning land (the lender having the use of the land until the loan is repaid) is common; again, cases must have a background of a variety of kinds of general information for proper analysis. Putting all this information together, a conclu- sion is reached as to the dollar value of each type of land and it is finally possible to tabulate the worth of the land of each family. But at this point it becomes clearly advisable to correct for pawned lands. Since income (and effective wealth) belongs not to the family that owns the land, but the one who is using it—often for so many years it might as well be transferred—it is necessary to make this correction by crediting pawned lands to the creditors. We then have a tabulation of the wealth of all the households in terms of land controlled—the best that land can tell us about differences in wealth. However, land is not the only thing in Pana- jachel culture. Among other things to consider are: (1) Domestic animals. Investigation of family bookkeeping (a complicated process itself) dis- closes that fowl and pigs are—far from being a measure of wealth in the sense that land is—a liability in Panajachel (where corn to feed animals must be purchased). One gets into problems of psychology in studying cases where animals are kept (as well as where unprofitable crops are grown) and learns some interesting things—not relevant here—but the conclusion is clear that since the rich have more and the poor fewer animals, and since the value of the animals is small compared to that of the land, the order of wealth as determined by land ownership and control is little affected when one takes into the account the ownership of domestic animals. FUNCTIONS OF WEALTH 191 (2) Fruit trees, a legitimate measure of wealth. A special census of trees has to be made, yields and prices, etc., calculated to determine their value. Fruit is especially valuable because the only labor required is in harvesting and marketing. But when all the data are collected, one knows that it will not upset the wealth scale as based upon land because trees grow on delta land, and the more trees owned the more delta land is apt to be owned. So, knowing this, elaborate calcu- lations are avoided. (3) Houses, utensils, furnishings, etc. These differ with different households, but a study of a sample of rich, medium, and poor (as measured by wealth in land) shows that the variation is not proportional to wealth. The same can be said of clothing, etc. These items check the land measure; they are too small to measure wealth, and of course they are not wealth producing. (4) Nonagricultural occupations. There are artisans and professionals (shamans, etc.) as well as merchants in the community—all only part time. A careful census must be made of all of these, and a variety of information gathered to determine how economically important such occu- pations are. In a few cases they were sufficiently important to require consideration in setting up a wealth scale based on land alone. A more significant independent check is found in the impressions of people. Informants who have been tested for carefulness as well as knowl- edge (preferably more than the two in number that were used in Panajachel) are asked to rate every household as to wealth on a scale from one to a hundred. The impressions of informants turn out to compare well enough, and well enough with the ordering according to land controlled. The prob- lem is then to examine the discrepancies to see why the impressions might differ, or differ from what appears to be objective wealth as measured in land. For most flagrant differences between informants’ impressions and wealth as measured there turn out to be explanations, and it is con- cluded that the land-controlled measure is a reli- able one to measure wealth differences. Using as an important basis of judgment the value of land controlled, the 134 Panajacheleno households could then be put in order of wealth (Appendix 3). The ‘Foreign’ households were placed on the same scale, but in their case occu- pation and other criteria were often more impor- tant than land in forming judgments. Then I added to the original numbering of the houses, which had been geographical, their wealth-order- number, and began to bring other data to bear on the following questions. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WEALTH DIFFERENCES In order to test correlations of wealth and poverty, it seemed advisable to subdivide the 132 Panajachelefio households into wealth groups. Since 132 is divisible by four, I divided the families into quarters instead of the more usual thirds, the top wealth quarter consisting of numbers 1-33, the second quarter of 34-66, and so on. LOCALIZATION OF WEALTH When the house numbers become wealth-order numbers as well (map 3), careful examination of the economic positions of the various families as spotted geographically shows that there is a definable pattern of localization. The east part of the delta may be divided into a wealthy and a poor section. One can draw a line running from the river below houses 95 and 125, west about two-thirds of the way to the base of the hill, and then irregularly south so that houses 43, 56, 2, 11, 17, 51, and 37 are to the west of it, that will enclose 49 households of which 15 are in the first wealth-quarter, 17 are in the second wealth-quarter, 12 are in the third wealth-quarter, and 5 are in the fourth wealth-quarter. Even if the north-south line were smoothed to include houses 73 and 119 in the area, and exclude house 2, the figures would still read 14, 17, 13, and 6 in each of the four quarters of the wealth scale, respectively, so that 31 of 50 families are in the richer half. By contrast, in the remainder of the east side, comprising the whole of the north and east areas, of 29 households 2 are in the first wealth-quarter, 1 is in the second wealth-quarter, 11 are in the third wealth-quarter, and 15 are in the fourth wealth-quarter. Or, with the line smoothed, the figures are 3, 1, 10, 14, respectively, with only 4 out of 28 families in the richer half of the population! The west side of the delta does not present so 192 simple a picture, but it is noteworthy that here, too, the richest section is in the corner facing the river and the lake. In the whole southern portion of this side of the delta there are but five poorest- quarter families, and four of the second-poorest, out of a total of 26 or 28 families, depending upon where the line is drawn. The fact appears to be that if one should bring together the two sides of the delta, he would find the heavy concentration of rich families in the center of the wide portion facing the lake, with the poorer people (always recognizing exceptions) to the north and along the border of the hills. Part of the explanation, certainly, is that the south-central part of the delta has the richest land, and the people whose homes are there have in- herited enough of it to give them an advantage. Tt will be recalled that it is in this area only that Indians own most of the land (map 5). It is true also that this section, especially the east side of it, is the most Indian and the most Panajachelefio part of the delta, and the nuclei of the most stable old families are found here. It has been noted that land-losing Indians tend to keep their house sites longer than their other lands, and so obviously the place where most Indians live is the place where one would expect to find the greatest num- ber owning at least a minimum of land; other things being equal, the Indians of that neighbor- hood are bound to be wealthier. It must be pointed out that in native concept there is no suggestion of rich and poor neighbor- hoods. The Indians do not realize that more of the wealthy live in one section than another; nor did I until this study was virtually complete and I could enter the data on the map. I do not think that the rich tend to move into the central delta portion (if there is such a tendency—and I have no evidence for it) because it is preferred as a wealthy neighborhood. That sort of thing seems foreign to the thinking and the whole sociological set-up of the Indians of Panajachel. Neighbor- hoods are known only by landmarks and by the names of their most numerous families, and those recognized do not coincide with those that I have here distinguished. LAND AND WEALTH Since land is the important measure of wealth, it is significant to see how wealth relates to patterns of renting and pawning land. Table 76 compares FUNCTIONS OF WEALTH the amount of land owned and controlled by all families involved in transfers of land by pawning. TaBLe 76.—Wealth of Panajacheleno households involved in land pawnings Value of land Order of land wealth Owned | Controlled $952. 95 $1, 542. 20 543. 00 549. 497. 25 457. 02 487, 32 367. 32 387. 00 429. 72 380, 98 172. 80 343. 56 181. 56 342. 32 317. 40 302. 83 233. 08 279, 25 229. 57 278. 25 260. 25 276. 25 346. 50 263. 31 290. 31 259. 25 193. 25 257.75 132. 00 257.75 203. 75 240. 54 336. 39 232. 25 46, 25 226. 00 222. 50 225. 30 137, 32 222. 50 333. 60 166. 00 46, 26 165, 10 138, 10 161. 68 172. 80 142.00 57. 50 139. 45 245,95 124. 94 172.19 123.11 73,96 113, 25 93. 37 102.75 4. 50 102. 50 116, 00 102. 50 62. 00 102. 50 71.00 98. 75 56. 00 94. 50 81.00 89. 63 96. 38 88. 50 35. 25 82. 37 18. 62 81.00 38, 25 57. 62 15. 62 57. 47 68.12 55. 50 42.00 53. 34 83, 22 46. 50 65.00 44.00 57. 50 33.10 73. 60 27. 00 97.12 27.00 43. 40 1 Some land pawned to another; other land on pawn. 2 Lands shared by 2 households; for some purposes I assume that each has half the land, but here the 2 are better treated as 1 case, The poorest quarter includes the seven landless families, and others with small amounts of land with values up to only $48. Clearly, the reason no families of this group had borrowed money on their land is that most of them had no land or almost none, or only house sites without com- mercial value. In the medium-poor quarter the number that had pawned land was 10, in the medium-rich quarter 5, and in the highest 13. Eight families in all—two in the medium-poor group and three each in the medium-rich and the wealthiest—were in 1936 on both ends of pawning agreements. In three cases—one in each of the ee FUNCTIONS OF WEALTH 193 three top groups—land pawned out was worth less than that taken in, so the fact that they were debtor households is hidden in the table. There- fore the number of households with land pawned was really as follows: ROOreSt Quarters S82.- 2s se sao kk 8 0 Medium-poor quarter_______----_-_-____- 1G Medium-rich quarter_________--__________ 6 Ruchestiquarters 22-52. Se. 22 2 ee 14 As one ascends the scale, the average value of the land given in pawn increases in each group, from $48 in the first to $63 to $98, presumably because there is increasingly more land to pawn. In the same way, the number of households who controlled land on pawn in 1936 may be summar- ized as’ Poorest Quarters = a22202 2285 ee ee a eee 5 Medium-poor quarter_____-____-__-_______- 5 Medium-rich quarter____________________- 6 RAIChestyQUANLED soe oa nae eae eee eee eLA 8 with the average value of the land $26, $18, $55, and $146 in the four groups respectively. With- out one extraordinary household, the average value in the last group would be but $58. It would appear that the poorest people who yet own a little land are becoming richer; that the medium-poor are going down rather than up; that there is considerable shifting of positions in the medium-rich group, so that as many are becoming richer as poorer; and that the richest families are tending to become poorer. It will also be noticed that most changes in amounts of land controlled are small, the families changing their relative posi- tions but little. However one family (No. 69) dropped from the middle down to the very bottom of the landed families. Actually, in this case the household has since disintegrated—the widowed mother having died and her sons having left town to seek work. Another (No. 30) dropped from a medium-rich position to among the poorest; this family is well-known for having frittered away its inheritance. A similar case is that of No. 27; there is a story told that when his parents died, the boy who is now head of this household burned his heritage of paper money, thinking it was just paper. The down-sledding of the last extreme case (No. 5) began (I was told by a principal in the story) when the family lost the services of a debtor-relative whose labor had helped make it wealthy. Sickness and death were also involved, and since 1936 the family has lost much more land. Extreme cases of improvement of position are not to be found. Table 77 shows that most renters are in the middle economic groups. In the lowest quarter there are 11 renters, in the second, 13, in the third, 18, and in the highest only 6. If the rentals of bean land are omitted, the figures are 9, 13, 16, and 5, and the value of land rented is $336, $471, $753, and $164 respectively in the 4 groups. Apparently renting increases with land owned up to a certain point; but large landholders do not TABLE 77.—Wealth of households renting agricultural land Value of land Order of land wealth Owned and con- trolled Con- trolled Rented Owned a eS no ao 6 85 BoSSSSSSSCRZR2S SSSSASSRSSSSSS SSRSSSSRSRSSSSRSENSR SNSse be Pw tw os ' wow DO oe SO SS ba 90 So ~D Sok San8e es = NS Baw B80 EfaoNwNe > Sn SSS arenes Berg oe SP Ph POND — wo arab ah g SE 8 1 The land as rented is not really worth this much because it is rented only for the growing of beans; but I have assigned it truck-land value. 2 Land used without payment by permission of employer-owner. 194 FUNCTIONS OF WEALTH rent land. The poorest people are laborers for others and do not have time for independent agriculture, hence do not rent land. The very wealthy have all the land they need. The renters are in between. SPECIAL OCCUPATIONS AND WEALTH Chart 19 indicates the economic level of spe- cialists, both artisans and professionals. Several generalizations become evident. (1) The immigrant Indians are set apart as a group of artisans, but among Panajachelefios there is no “class” of artisans. One mason has little land, the second is in the middle of the land scale; two of the women who prepare food for sale are of poor families, the third is of a family above the 0 No. of People — Artisans 16 -30 “46-60 —/- Business 61-75 Land-wealth Divisions Ranging from Wealthiest to Landless middle; most of the women who weave for others are of poor and medium-poor families, but one is of the near-wealthy group; the pig butchers are of the middle and wealthy groups. (2) Nevertheless, it is clear that the land- wealthy engage in the arts less than do the poor. The land-rich pig butcher, for example, knows how to kill pigs but he hardly practices the art; the wealthier weavers work less at weaving for others than do the poor weavers. (3) On the other hand, the professionals tend not to be of the poorest families, nor—as it hap- pens—of the few wealthiest, but are distributed rather evenly through the middle group. It is likely that the practice of a profession improves one’s economic position so that he can obtain 76-90 91-105 106-120 121-132 VAIS —"7— Musician Foreign ; Artisans -“--- Practitioners /!//' Foreign Other Occu- pations Cuart 19.—Special occupations and the land-wealth scale. FUNCTIONS OF WEALTH 195 more land and become wealthier (or so that he is not forced to sell land, hence to become poorer). That may be why professionals are not found (with one exception) among the poorest families as they are counted by land owned. It is also likely that in spite of the fact that shamans and midwives are said to be “called”’ to their profession (which they must then practice, lest they sicken and die), there is an important economic motive in the taking up of a profession. It may be true that a curer accidentally comes to know how to treat an illness and that then he is asked to assist, but it is likely that members of wealthy families who on the one hand have much land to take care of and on the other do not need special sources of income, resist gaining reputations as curers. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that shamans and midwives and curers and musicians become interested in learning partly for the income involved, that poorer people are attracted to such professions, and that they tend to become wealthier because of their profession. Weavers are found at all levels of the popula- tion, but especially in the poorest half and, again, in the richest quarter (table 78). In addition to the 11 poorest-quarter families there are two whose women may weave (information lacking). It seems reasonable to suppose that the poor people weave because they cannot afford not to, and they also weave for others to earn money; that the very poorest weave less than the next- poorest because none of them are agricultural laborers; that the people of the second-richest quarter weave little because they can afford to pay others to do it while at the same time they have enough land to keep them busy in the fields. Why families of the richest quarter weave is explicable to me only on the grounds that they can afford to hire laborers in the fields so that the women can pursue the fine arts—but then I cannot explain why none of the wealthy women are able to put the designs into their huipiles! Evidence that in general these explanations are sound is found in the fact that in the poorest quarter 6 of the 11 weavers weave for others, for pay; only 4 of the 19 in the second quarter, only 2 of the 11 in the third quarter, and none of the 37 in the richest quarter weave for others. In the wealthy families also, all of the women and girls tend to weave. It is also interesting that the only recorded case of a woman who knows how to weave, but does not do it, is found in the second richest quarter where I have supposed the women keep busiest in their fields. LABOR AND WEALTH It is evident that “laborers” are found only among the poor. But it may be well to ask what is the minimum land that a family may control to (1) permit its members to work exclusively on its own land and (2) to require it to hire outside labor. At first sight several complications would appear to make difficult, if not impossible, the resolution of these questions: a. The size of the family, and its composition. A large family, especially with grown men, can work more land without outside assistance than can a small one, or one with few men. Family A with an acre of truck land might be able to work it without paid assistance and find that it consumes all of the time of the family; family B might be able to work the same land without assistance, but it might also have to seek work outside; family C might consume all of its time on the same acre and might require outside help besides; family D, with a shortage or absence of men, might require help on the land but in turn might have to work for others to fill in the time and make ends meet; and family E, with a shortage or absence of women, might find it economical to work outside and hire cheaper female labor for some agricultural processes. TaBLe 78.— Distribution of Panajachel textile workers Textile processes Twisting All and/or ee a ace sewing g SSeS Economic level sity | ss en |e wn | wen | se og |S, | PG] SO, | OS 1 9, | SG] So iy be wo ke hry be ie} be £3 | 28 |#2| 28/83 |38| 23 | 28 £2)85182/)88/82)85/82/ 85 S23) 50/55 | Sa| 58) 30,] se | se 2a |24 Get ea 2a 14 2a 14 Poorest quarter ?_____- 11 14 2 3 8 10 1 Middle-poor quarter--_ 15 22 2 3 9 15 4 Middle-rich quarter__.| 11 11 1 1 9 9 1 1 Richest quarter_.__-_-_ | 17 37 3 7 15 30) |2224--|2.2222 Totali;--- 32 358 84 8 14 41 64 6 6 1 The woman who does no thread twisting is included here. 2 On the scale of land controlled. 3 The number of households in which textile arts are practiced is not the total of the numbers in which each process is practiced because in 1 household 2 persons only sew while a third also weaves. b. The kind of land, and its use. Some crops require much more labor than others. A family with most of its land in coffee has both opportunity and need to hire out to others, while another family with the same land, but most of it truck, might be fully and profitably occupied only on its own land. Likewise, some truck crops require much more labor than others, and one family on an acre might have to hire labor, a second hire out, and a third—at different seasons—do both. Furthermore, whether for technical reasons or because of folk beliefs, cornfields are 196 usually planted, cultivated, and harvested in as short a time as possible, so that regardless of the amount of land owned, Indians with cornfields frequently hire help and in turn—if they have little land—hire themselves out. c. The “ambition’’ of the family, and its standard of living. One family may be satisfied to work its acre of land and do no more, while another with the same land might seek work outside in addition, while still another might hire help when, if its members preferred to exert themselves as do others, this would be unnecessary. One must also take into consideration accidents and circumstances. Sickness may require the hiring of help when it would otherwise be unnecessary; or a period of municipal or religious service may make it impossible in a given year for a family to do all of its own work. d. Other occupations, and occupational preferences. Important as farming is, it has been seen that some Indians devote time to other occupations, whether because they are more profitable or for social or mystic reasons (as when a shaman who does not answer a ‘‘call’’ becomes sick in consequence). Such persons of course must hire more labor on the same land than those who devote all of their time to farming. FUNCTIONS OF WEALTH In short, “other things’ are rarely equal, and sound generalizations are exceedingly difficult to make. Yet an analysis of the available informa- tion, as shown chiefly in table 79, answers the two questions with surprising ease. Table 79 is based on incomplete information concerning employ- ment of Indians by Indians except exclusively for milpa work. Using a wealth-scale based on the value of land controlled, both employers and employees are ranged in order of wealth and the original data entered. It is seen that 28 resident Indian families are known by me to have em- ployed other Indians on their land. Two of these are foreign, 26 Panajachelefios. Of the latter no less than 18 are in the top quarter on the wealth scale, 7 are in the second quarter, and only 1 is as low as the very top of the second-poorest quarter. As one would expect, those owning most land hire labor. Likewise, 28 Panajachel Indian families TaBLy 79.—Indians regularly employed by Indians in Panajachel ! Em- Distribution of Indian labor by employers, rich to poor ployees, 1 Explanation of abbreviations: m=1 male of the household. f=1 female of the household. (m)= Unknown number of males. (f) = Unknown number of females. Con.= Indians of Concepcién. Sol. =Indians of Sololé. Jor.= Indians of San Jorge. Cat.= Indians of Santa Catarina Palopo. Tep.=Indians of Teepan. 31a} 32 54 | 59 | 61 | 67 | 76a 31a and 76a are Jorgeno Indians resident in Panajachel. They were not graded on the Panajachel wealth scale, but have been put in here because they hire other Indians to do agricultural labor. The number indicates where they fit in the Panajachel wealth scale if only their Panajachel lands are considered; this is inaccurate because both families probably own land in San Jorge as well, and on this I have no information. Numbers indicate employers and employees according to wealth s FUNCTIONS OF WEALTH 197 regularly worked in the fields of other resident Indians, and 22 of these are in the bottom half on the wealth scale; 4 are in the second-richest quarter and one in the richest. Again, those who own little or no land are those who hire themselves out. Information is not sufficient to explain all of the few exceptions to the rule. I suspect, for example, that the fourth richest man (No. 4 in table 79) hires men in his fields, since he cannot possibly do himself the six hundred and fifty-odd man-days of work usually done by men that is required in his fields, if my data about his fields are anywhere near correct. He is the only man in his household. Likewise, I have no information on men hired by the fifth-richest family, and although there are 3 women in the household, there is only one grown man. Itis probable that again there is an omission in the data. On the other hand, the fact that No. 6 hired no men in 1936 is explicable by the fact that there were three grown men in the household. And, similarly, it is clear that the reason No. 10 hired so many is that he was too old to work and two young sons had to carry the burden. Also, the reason why No. 15 hired so many laborers, in spite of there being three grown men and four women in the house, is that the family grows an unusual amount of onions and onion seed. Were the basic data absolutely relia- ble, it would be worth while to analyze each instance in detail. As it is, I shall confine myself to discussion of the more striking exceptions. Numbers 388, 39, and 40 probably do not own enough land to justify their hiring labor. In the first case one of the two men of the household, however, was engaged in various enterprises aside from agriculture, and so could hire men; he also rented a sizable piece of truck land and worked his land more intensively than most. In the second case the head of the household is a shaman, and the three sons of the house were not full grown in 1936. In the third case, the head of the house, and his wife were past their prime, and only a daughter and her husband (and two _ babies) completed the household; the man cared for dairy cows and hired labor for the fields. No. 44 is an exception easy to explain; the head of the house was old and was an entrepreneur and a merchant— and the only other adults of the household were a school-teacher son and his Ladino wife. I cannot explain the case of No. 54, who had two grown sons and two grown daughters and—in addition— two wives; it is true that most of his land was in onions, but the family should have been able to care for them, and whatever the reasons why they did not, there is no indication in my data of how he could support the family(ies) and still pay laborers. In the case of No. 59 the family consisted of a widow and her daughter and son-in-law (with two small children); according to my information, the land was not intensively planted, and I do not know why men were hired. No. 61, on the other hand, a family consisting of a couple with a young child, planted all of their land in onions, and doubtless required and could afford the female help. Even more easily is exceptional No. 67 explained, since in addition to the lands that the couple (of which the household consists) owned, they rented truck land and grew onions almost exclusively. As far as employes are concerned, it may be emphasized that table 79 does not include mention of Indians who work for Ladinos. It has already been mentioned that the seven landless families (with one possible exception) are full-time laborers, but they work for the most part for Ladinos, hence do not appear in the table. The other land-poor Indian families shown as working for other Indians also work for Ladinos; the few exceptions are those who have part-time nonfarming occupations and/or who rent land. As they approach the middle of the land-wealth scale, however, the households of which persons work for others drop off sharply in number. Again, the exceptions are usually explicable. No. 68 was a household con- sisting of two grown men and a woman, and a nearly adult youth; although it controlled con- siderable land, and rented more, it doubtless had a surplus of labor to sell. On the other hand No. 62 and No. 66 were families with only one man, and even more land; but the men rented no land and had virtually all of their own planted in coffee, so in their cases they had at once little with which to occupy themselves, and the need to work outside. The case of No. 43 I can explain only on the basis of the man’s being exceptionally industrious (which he is); he cultivated sufficient land inten- sively enough to keep himself very busy, and yet he occasionally worked for others. The same may be said of the woman of family No. 25, but here two other factors may enter: there are two men and three women in the household, and the balance is upset so that the family finds it neces- 198 FUNCTIONS OF WEALTH sary to hire a man, while one of the women can work elsewhere occasionally; and it may be recorded that doubtless a personal factor is important, for the woman who works is the widowed stepmother of the head of the house, and the family for which she works is that of her married daughter. One may conclude, in answers to the questions put, that (1) A family controlling at least $200 worth of land, normally distributed among cornfield, truck, and coffee, does not hire out its labor, and pre- sumably does not need to. Two hundred dollars is the value of the land owned that divides 33 and 34 on the wealth scale, so it is seen that the only exception about which I know is that of No. 25 in table 79. That exception is not serious. A fam- ily controlling between $60 and $200 worth of land apparently hires (and needs to hire) out its labor only in unusual circumstances. ($60 is the amount of land dividing 90 and 91 on the scale.) Families owning less than $60 worth of land nor- mally cannot live off of it and need some other source of income. (2) A family controlling at least $335 worth of land hires (and presumably needs to hire) agricul- tural labor, assuming again that its crop distri- bution is normal. Three hundred and thirty-five dollars is the value of land owned that separates 12 from 13 in the wealth scale. Only one highly doubtful exception appears in my data. Stacking 10 net-bags of maize in CEPA Ve Soar peal Se ee ee (General harvest per cuerda: 3- mesh bags, or loads) Truck Farming: Making tablones for growing vegetables (8 tablones each 3 varas wide by 32 varas long are made from 1 cuerda of land): Scraping 1 cuerda Watering 1 VOUS Beer 22 a. Se iy e Hoeing and preparing 1 tablén Onion Seedlings (in tablones) : Applying fertilizer to 1 tabl6n_______- Planting and covering with leaves, ING Ls 1160) (epee ee eee ee en First cultivation, 1 tabl6n__________- Second cultivation, 1 tabl6n________- Pulling up seedlings of 1 tablén and preparing them for transplanting_- (Seedlings are watered every day for 45 days during the dry season; then for 15 days they are watered every 3 days.) cuerda before making 1 The time is figured on the basis of what an industrious, full-grown man can do. The cuerda is always 32 oaras square. 208 2 days. 1 day. Do. Do. Do. Do. Truck Farming—Continued Transplanting Onions: Smoothing and planting 1 tablén Watering 2 cuerdas of onions__-_---- First cultivation of 1 tablén__---.---- Pulling up onions of 1 tablén and ar- ranging in bunches___----------- (Onions remain 4 months in the tabl6n and are watered twice weekly.) Garlic (in tablones) : Preparing the seed for 1 cuerda____-- Planting: Witablonz~-222 52 22a ee One (only) cultivation of 1 tabl6n__-_- Watering two cuerdas__-.-.--------- Pulling up and carrying home of garlic ODSENCG D107) mea eee Before selling, braiding 15 bunches--- (1 tablén produces 40 bunches. Garlic is watered twice weekly, and always sunned 5 days before braiding.) Black ground-beans (in tablones) : Planting 1 cuerda of beans___------- One (only) cultivation of 1 cwerda__-_ Watering 2. cuerdas 2-2 222222522 Pulling up and carrying home dried béansvof 1 cverda— --- = =o (Black ground-beans remain in the tablones 3 months; they are watered twice weekly.) Black pole-beans (in tablones) : (Same time as for ground-beans with the following additional.) Finding and bringing poles for 1 Placing the poles in 1 tablén___-- (Black pole-beans remain in the tablones 4 months; watered twice weekly.) Cabbage, Beets, Turnips, Lettuce, Meta- bel, Swiss chard (in tablones): Require the same work as the growing of onion seedlings and their transplanting - - - --- 1 day. DOCUMENT RELATING TO LABOR 209 Truck Farming—Continued Carrots (in tablones): Same as for growing onion seedlings, omitting the 2d culti- vation; watered the same as onions; re- main 4 months in the tablones. Cucumbers (in tablones): Planting and fertilizing 1 tablén_____- Cultivation (only one) of 1 tablén____ (Remain in tablones 3 months; watered twice weekly.) Tomatoes (in tablones): First seedlings are made just as with onions; transplanted in new tablones with same tasks as for planting sweet pepinos, below. Watered same as pepinos. 1 cultivation (only): 2 tablones, with (Tomatoes months.) Sweet pepinos (by cuerdas): mcraping Vicverda-- 2. sese"-- soe If land turned over, 1 cuerda________ Digging the holes in 1 cwerda_______- Bringing and applying fertilizer, 1 remain in tablones 3 Planting 1 cwerda_____---____-____- Watering 1 cwerda (done twice weekly) Cultivating and ridging the mounds of each plant of 1 cwerda_____________- (Cultivating done monthly; fruit har- vested after 1 year). When the plants bear, fences are made: Finding posts for 1 cuerda____.-____- Planting posts for 1 cwerda__.______- Finding reeds for tying poles and Cutting and hauling cornstalks to fence 1 cuerda_.-..--__-_-- Sweet cassava and sweetpotatoes: (in furrows 32 varas long): Making 2 furrows___.-----_----_---- 1st cultivation of 4 furrows__-______- 2d cultivation of 4 furrows______-_-- (Remain 6 months in ground; watered twice weekly). Coffee: Planting: Opening 25 holes____-_------------ Uprooting 50 plants with dirt______- Carrying 100 plants a distance of 1 Planting 100 plants_____--_-------- (The shade trees require the same amount of work as the planting of the coffee itself.) Do. Do. Do. 4 days. 2 days. Do. 1 day. Do. 2 days. 1 day. Do. Do. Do. Coffee—Continued Harvesting: Cutting (picking) 1 50-pound sugar sackful of berries________________ Do. Husking and picking-over 1 50-pound sackfule 2-102 ta See eee ee Do. Washing 4 50-pound bags of husked COMeG sea. eee ees eee Do (Washed coffee should be sunned for 5 days.) Fruit trees always require a little work, such as removing the parasites from the branches and harvesting such fruits as Spanish plums, cross sapodillas, avocado, limas, oranges, etc. For the vegetable pear plants trellises must be made to raise the branches, etc. The work in this town is not done in the same time as that in other pueblos because on every piece of land we have more than one thing planted, and we must do each task very slowly so as not to harm the things growing. Those things which require only three or four months to grow in the tablones are planted more than once a year: Onions are planted three times a year. Garlic is planted twice a year. Black beans are planted twice a year. It must be remembered that some tasks require more than one worker: cleaning the onions, clearing land in the hills, etc. Making up the accounts, it can be seen that only the tablones of one cuerda of onions give many man-days of work. Every Friday, Tuesday, or other day of the week all must go to the markets of other towns to sell the products of our fields. There are some who fatten animals such as steers, cows for milk, sheep, etc., and it takes part of their time to give the necessary care to the animals. We make our houses in the form of ranchos, and for these we must go out some days to the country to find lumber, reed, cane, thatch, etc., and it takes time to build the houses. Firewood is very important in our homes, especially in winter; we must prepare it on rather a large scale to save ourselves the worry when it rains much. In the summer we must go to fix up the irrigation ditches of the town, sometimes farther than one kilometer; because we all use this water to water our fields, it often takes longer than listed above. The onion seed which we harvest here is so delicate that it takes much time and patience to cut it, transport it, dry it, and clean it; it is so little that much is required to make upapound. (This is aside from the time it has been in the tablones, its watering, fertilizing, and care given it against afflictions it may suffer.) Dated, Panajachel, August, 1937. (Signed by all the Indians] APPENDIX 2 COMMODITY PRICES AND INDEX The following alphabetical list of commodities is included for convenience in reference. Most items mentioned in the text are included in the list, and the page numbers refer to discussions in the text, both of prices and of consumption. These references are not repeated in the general index. Prices of commodities in Guatemala City, where they are available, are listed. These have three sources, identified with asterisks, daggers, and double daggers, respectively: * Memorias de Hacienda y Crédito Piblico for the years 1988, 1939, and 1940, tables 26, 38, and 57 on pages 597— 598, 699-702, and 728-730, respectively. These tables give Guatemala City monthly prices of a few commodities over a period of years; among the three are given prices for the years 1935 to 1940, inclusive. In the following list minimum, maximum, and average prices are recorded for both the entire period of 6 years and (**) For the 1 year, 1936. (+) Tables 25, 37, and 56 on pages 596, 698, and 727 re- spectively, of the same Memortas, give monthly prices of “articles of first necessity”? in Guatemala City for the year of the Memoria. In cases where these data are used in the following list, the maximum, minimum, and average prices are given for the 3 years 1938, 1939, and 1940 com- bined. (t) The newspaper El Imparcial, Guatemala, at inter- vals, usually weekly, from April 3, 1937 to August 21, 1937, published current prices in the Central Market in Guate- mala City. (The feature probably began before the initial date mentioned, but issues of the newspaper before then are not available to me; it was omitted after August 21, although it may have been resumed later.) Since I have records for only 5 months, obviously the ‘‘maximum”’ and “minimum” figures given in the table are not necessarily absolute for the year, and the average of the weekly figures are not necessarily averages for the year. In the list are included some commodities with- out their prices either in Panajachel or in Guate- mala City. This is done so that most commodities known to enter into the economy of Panajachel may be found listed in one place. Commodities that are not purchased, such as houses and the products of the women’s looms, are not, however, included. Price list and index Price j D q Commodity Panajachel, 1936 Guatemala City Pages in text Unit Average | Mini- | Maxi- normal | mum | mum Unit Average $0. 25 -01 014g - 09 Number | Number 5 8 Apples ose eet For 1 cent_--..-_-- Avocados dGs-s- 7 -- 3 5 Axheads 22. e2a5.2o.24-.-.|Bachs:--2 8-2: $1.15 | $1.00 Bags: Large mesh.....----..--|..-.- (¢ 0 peanate Sear 215 .10 ee an Small, Solol4 type_-____|____- (sf hen eee aed Pp Fs) .10 fi ee Number Balsamito seed_...__._.---_- By Sp kccan | Meee |e Bananas: “Apple type”’_..-------- “Bird type” “Pig type”’_- Lo $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.04 - 03 0. 04 +05 04 -05 -07 .07 - 08 Number |Number| Number “Silk” coast __ 4 8 2 | 100 Basins, tin: AEE = 2==25 ae —— $0.20 | $0.10 | $0.30 |=} 01 11 RS ae ae coer ee d .07 05 -10 Baskets .06 | .10 -00'4) =. 02 137, 172. 173 130, 131, 135, 137, 171. 135, 137, 171. 138, 143. 125, 127, 135, 138. 27, 48, 90, 148. eseccbecccs BW) [ecre reae eee fences | Pies |r Wi tog 138. Ce ey Pe | [ne ra pee 135. 135. -| 56, 115, 122, 133 fm., 135, 136, 138, 143, 174. beste udeapew ee $.25 - 20 -30 | 174. 11, 134, 138. Seb ceiipentdoesee 12, 21, 25, 44, 46, 47-48, 52, 55, 82, 101 fn., 102, 122, 129, 134, 135, 138, 140, 141, 143, 169-170. Dry, black.._.__--.-.--- 016 ol) .02 Dry, piloy_- OMG a dl coped ee ee Dry, red____ 016 .01144] .02 | Hundredweight_ $2. 23 1.48 3. 5644 Dry, white__ s2H02. = - 02 O1}4) - 0214) ___ 2. do____ = $2. 23 1.48 3.5644 Beans, preen 225i Pound measure. -- 01%) =. 01 01)4| Pound_._ 2 $.05 04 -10 | 52, 54, 92, 104, 109 fn, 110, 113-114. 210 121, 122, 127, 137, 143, 173. COMMODITY PRICES AND INDEX Commodity Belts, leather - Blankets, large (light) _ Blanket (rodilleras) - eta empty, 2e Boxes, wood (gasoline) ------ Bread Brooms, without handles--- gar Carmelos panela Molasses (alfanique) - --- Canes (bamboo lengths) - - -- Carrying cloth. Totan., girls’_ Totan., Women’s---__---- Carrying frames (cacastes) -- (ohits ete een ree Chests, Wooden------------- (Ohichipates= --=-----na— nen Chickens'= 2222-2 -32-=-=.- Chickpeas Chipilin....-.-------------- Chocolate tablets. Beans, in shell _--------- Beans, shelled----..---- Beverage Price list—Continued Price Panajachel, 1936 Guatemala City : Average | Mini- | Maxi- . Mini- | Maxi- Unit normal |} mum | mum Unit Average | num | mum Piece 2 by 114 by 14 inches. Pound Package of 12____-- Package of 27_-_--- INgChee:saaaes 211 Pages in text 147. 22, 122, 134, 142, 172. 141. 23. 54, 114, 127, 130. 150, 158. -| 30, 175, 176. 11, 150, 158, 175, 176. 26, 97, 151. 23, 96, 101, 102, 134, 135, 137, 138, 141, 171, 174. 44, 52, 54, 114, 122, 127, 130, 135, 138, 173. 150, 151, 158. 153. 150, 151, 160, 202. 158. 21, 27, 109, 116, 142, 176, 177, 178. “| 135, 174. 144, 145, 146, 147-148. 44, 52, 54, 114, 130, 135, 138, 173. 153. 151, 153, 159. 11, 147. 147, 174. 137, 171. 14, 25, 93, 117-118, 122, 131, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 142, 17h. 173. 134, 138, 141, 170-171, 181. 138. 135, 136, 137, 181. 136, 137, 138, 176, 181. 135. 55, 127, 135, 137, 171. 138. 2, 27, 40-44, 55-56, 60, 82, 84, 91, 93, 97, 99, idl, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 114- 115, ‘122, 123, 128, 131, 134, 135, 141, 170, 185, 186. | 135, 136, 137. 135, 137, 141. | 179. 173. 135, 136. 212 COMMODITY PRICES AND INDEX Price list—Continued Commodity Panajachel, 1936 Guatemala City Pages in text mi Average Mini- ent normal mum Cookies (rosquitos) - -------- Outice=. 2. -25..-2e $0. 0014) 5, 13 n Cordoncillo----- Ounce bunch 135, 186, 174 Coriander. - [OR eer nom eae Gruel (atole).-------<-.. 8-ounce gourd -___- - 0018 Highland --------------- POUngE go oeaceee es 0144 RUSK S oe ews ace eens Bunch of 50------- 01 ae: |" Number For licent..--~--=- Bunch of 4-------- $0. 02 Cross-sapodillas Cross-sapodilla s Cuajilotes---- Cuchinas- -- Custard-apples- - ----------- MORSE a= ae — Doors, wooden Drawers: Files ‘(knife sharpeners) - ---- Wirew.ood--.-=--s<22---.-5-- is eee enedae tne Dried’ sea. -<._ <<. -cac54 Fresh lake Mojarra (VY? Be ae Fresh lake aoe pas Fresh lake (small) - ----- Flour, wheat (native) ------- Fodder grass Garlic heads- Medium. Aarge2.2-- --2e Garlic, cloves (smalles Giapete ee soe Gourds - Jicaras- Uh) eee eee (epee tl Cis See eee ee Grinding stones_------ a aee Gilavasen.—oc- =o Gunpowder PESTON OOKS a cccapnnSen can Handkerchiefs_-...--------- eats Strawe- ooo. sobs an on Boys’ (coarse) -_-------- Dine..=-. Head bands “Panajachel”__-...-..-- “Motonicapan’’. =. «-..--- Hoe blades Oia Ne sec ec teen esos ieorsebeans iui -2 22. 2252 Huipiles, Toton. type Estoraque (Lj aeeene2 destoraque (2). 222-252... For 1 cent Bunch_.- 60 heads. 12 pounds_ Dunes! 2255 Each Hundredweight. 1700 er TWA: Nie Pobre pak A a Le 55, 173. 11, 12, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 30, 37, 40, 44, 45, "6, "47, 48, 49-52, 56, 92, 101, 102, 104, 106, 109-110, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 128-129} 131, 133 fn., 134, 135, 136, 137, 138) 139-40, 141, 142, 144, 149 fn. and 149, 167, 169, 181, 183, 11, 134, 152. 135, 138. 133, 136 fn., 188, 142, 172. 56, 115, 138, 143. 33, 135. 138. 138. 55, 138, 173. 134. 174. 23. 173. 21, 117, 121, 131, 164, 169. 144, 146. 118, 122, 135, 136, 138, 141, 172. 135. 175. 30, 33, 38, 57, 93, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 133, 138, 148, 174, 176. 133, 136 fn. 135, 137, 138, 172. 142. 135, 136 fn., 142, 172. -| 137, 188. 23. 138. 134, 174, 175. 12, 44, 45, 46, 52, 54, 55, 92, 104, 112, 113, 122, 126, 127, 129, 135, 143, 173, 183. 137. 135, 171. 11, 133. 135, 174. 11, 56, 183 fn., 138, 148, 174, 138. 135, 136, 174. 136, 151, 158. 11, 133, 135, 136, 151, 153. 151. 151. 151. 151, 158, 158. 23, 27, 48, 49, 53, 90, 102, 134, 148. 56, 120, 141, 171. 136. 150, 151, 152, 153-154, 159, 160. ie 54, 133 fn., 135, 137, 143, 172. ed 116, 137, 176, 177, 178, 179. COMMODITY PRICES AND INDEX Price list—Continued Commodity 213 Price Panajachel, 1936 Guatemala City Unit Average | Mini- | Maxi- Unit Average | Mini- | Maxi- normal | mum |} mum mum | mum Pages in text b Boards (816’ x 11 x 1’”)_ “ox 4”? (814" x 14”) eee Planks (33's x 11x. @alzentos-_--=-2---~--5- Machetes-- Maguey fi Miaicenast=e-2ee-2 222 cucus-- ae small hand_- “Mulberry” herb.- Mushrooms--- Nan G@S2222-- 2-28 2s Seeec sue Napkins, small cloth_ Necklaces Needles____- 12 years only. 0.06 OF TON 122 = Hundredweight- -| Hundredweight- Number |Number| Number For 1 cent___.-.-.- 6 8 CT (ieee ct ae al (Bey Ea ete | Cel | Ee Polnd ==*222=-s<- $0:'00%61)'$0)00%6]) $0:00%4| 22. 235 a2 ee co cee aeoeeee Number Number Ck iumneee Number Riad 8 $0. ot ¥4! $0.01}4] $0. og fe Pp 8 | - 06 15 05 - 03 BOS M pL0G see ee eener 3.39 25 - 60 - 02 -O1 - 03 Number 138. 135. 151, 160. 134, 174. 174, 176. 134, 174. 54, 135, 138. 127, 174, 175. 22, 27, 56, 96, 133, 134, 137, 141, 142, 172. 133, 137, 172, 174. 172, 172. 137, 172. 54, 130, 135. 56, 115, 122, 125, 127, 128, 136, 138, 143. 11, 14, 33, 56, 134, 135, 136 fn., 137, 138, 167. 115, 135. 135. 12, 23, 98, 134, 138, 177, 178-179, 180, 181. 152. 33-34, 133, 145, 146. 23, 27, 48, 49, 90, 134, 136, 148, 175. 145. 138. 115, 138, 143. 135, 176. 11, 134, 133 {n., 135, 136 fn., 175. 135, ae 138, 21, 98, tbo, 181, 134, 164. 138. 55. 136. 173. 137. 137. 136. 12, 19, 29, 44-45, 52, 53-54, 55, 92, REA 110-112, 114, 116, 122, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 135, 138, 142- 143, 173, 183. 54. 56, 115, 122, 125, 127 ,128, 135, 138 143. 115. 115. 135. 56, 115, 135, 173. 176. 135, 138. 214 COMMODITY PRICES AND INDEX Price list—Continued Price Commodity Panajachel, 1936 Guatemala City Paves iiitart . Average | Mini- | Maxi- Mini- | Maxi- Unit normal | mum | mum Unit Average | mum | mum Number Peaches, season -..._.----..- Ort) COMBS. o2-Wcsciln 02 O Ol) 2 tole Ap eed Mk eee ee rere es earn rare ane come eee Net erereemcars 56, 115, 138, 143, 173. Peanuts, roasted __ Ounce___ s 135, 136, 137, 174. (Bears -o2- <= = 138, 143. Peas (in pod) - ae 54, 55, 130, 137. Pencils___-_--- Each Pen points__ ----do Tali) lote} | 2 ee eS ee ee. 4 er eee eee 44, 45, 46, 52, 53, 55, 92, 114, 122, 127, 129, 130, 135, 138, 183. 4 Eee oe eles MMieditim =. 2. 22s2 ooo} I00 Ee cecce cases dS) 20) 220) |p eet Oe os bec eceee|eacoeneee Small____- : = Pepitoria ----___-- Polini foes seas $.29 28 30 Pepper de castillo_- Hundredweight.| 22.17 22.00 | 24.25 | 135. Peat 2 go BA cee |B | Sec 114, 136, 137, 141, 170. Pound. ......_.- “04 203 205 | 135, 138, 170. Piquant, “horse?” Piquant, ‘“‘chocolate”’ - _- Piquant, “pico sanak’’__ Piquant, ‘‘zambo’’____ Piquant, ‘‘pasa’’___- Piquant, ‘‘gobanero’’- Piquant, ‘‘chiltope’’ - Sweet, ‘‘guaque”’____ Petaxte seed . .-.....-- Photographs_- 181. Pickax heads_- 48, 53, 55, 102. 1g [nes a 14, 22, 93, 96, 117. Crowes s-45—. 199. moung-----2-2_- Pimienta gorda- -___ 135. Pineapples_-_---------- i 138. IPINGlOs <3. 2 asssecnces 137. Pitchers, china___- -| 135. Pitchwood_-__.---- 133 ftn., 134, 135, 136, 138. Plantains=222 552.2... 135, 138, 173. Plates, enamelware- 134, 135. 1210) 9 eo eee 122 {n., 133 ftn., 134, 136, 142, 172. Pork ribs (cooked) __-- 137. Pork sausage (chor ize) - - 138, Pork sausage (longaniza) __ 172. Pork-blood sausage E . = P -| 135, 172. Potatoes. 2.525. =-c2<65--05 135, 136, 137, 143, 173. IMrst grades sscacecces : Second grade__ Third grade Potato shoots -_- Pots: Perforated - -....._....-- Pitchers: -- 22s<2-5~~ , =i OR eee eee Water Jars: .----_--- Zz : . 7 148-149. OES; DOWIS 2-2 - oe d - Pg a Pears ‘ 11, 25-26, 138, 174, 175. Pots,cooking-.2.<-<.... = ea pa q = 11, 136, 138. Largest Aer ee a Large apastes __-__-_- Medium apastes-__- Small apastes.-_------._- Prickly pears_.-.........._- 138, 173. Radishes Ee 44, 52, 54, 114, 130, 135, 138, Large Small Raincoats a: ez 7 nae c Raw cotton ane - 136, 137. rown White 17h ae ae ea ie 07 . 56%4) 5. jaa, 135, 137, Rice-and-milk beverage. : ‘ : 122, 135, 136, 174. Rings, finger__-._____._. Rockets, quality Rodilleras........-.......... : ; pai 100. oarse: eae Rapes Aas ee ; 158, (1 ee Ee am : aie - 150, 158. RO YStoa renee cone Men}s2 sate 5 c.c: 2. 150. Rope, heavy.....-.__..- 34, 135, 138. Rope measuring cord - Rose-apples_-__-_-___- 7 Rubber bands (of inner tube). 138. 135. COMMODITY PRICES AND INDEX Bile Price list—Continued Price P hel, 193! i Commodity Panajachel, 1936 Guatemala City Pages initext an Average | Mini- | Maxi- ; 7 Unit normal | mum | mum Unit Average | mum | mum 55, 138, 173. I, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 170, 173. oh 135, 136, 151, 158,£159, (OCC ees For'dicont:...<---- 2 3 1 Ee ae eee ee (eed Ol ppeeeeree ll Ramee 115, 135. 150, 153, 158. 151, 153, 159, 160. 135. 173. vs 158. 180-151, 160. Rae. : 32, 133 ftn., 174. aie ; : i : | Ho: ; ; 135, 136, 137. Sickles-.----.--- Skirt material 26, 94, 151, 154, 159. ai 151. Fae Ege o Tie-dye De : Soap, black ESCs oad he tb 1344] .18 2 joap, black ---.------------- 3 SeSeccaaet 14, 53, 55, 129, 130, 135, 137, 139, 143, 172. Tir) geet CC bseiecaendee hy SE peg A) rice a ae | YAS ee | net | aes een} Rane rarer eterna rae 138. 216 COMMODITY PRICES AND INDEX Price list—Continued Commodity Totoposte___ DEY S sete ee eee Troughs for grinding stone-- Pomp straps..-.-.-.-+.-.:-- Turkeys. - Turnips- Weretables: +526 2.2-<. ==: <- Vegetable pears____.-------- Vegetable pear root Vegetable pear shoots_-___-- Winlegars: = seo- soto ade Warping boards- White sapodilla___---_-_-.-- Woolen cloth (for gaban)___- MHI BO0USi22c.——- sons. For woman’s blouse..--- For drawers. --_---- utes Yarn, cotton, red, green, yellow, lavender. Yarn: Cotton, thread, black No. 10. Cotton, tie-dyed__-__--- Cotton, white__.._---_-- Bike coe encase Zacatinta (dye plant)--_-_-- Unit Price Panajachel, 1936 Average normal Number Mini- mum Number 5 $0. 01 Unit 1 $0. 02 Average Number Guatemala City Mini- | Maxi- mum | mum Number| Number Pages in text 12, 24, 95, 97, 106, 138, 153, 167, 170, 174. 138. 175. 174, 175. 94, 174, 175. 21) 22, '118, 131, 142, 171-172. 52, 54, 114, 130, 135, 136, 138, 173. 27, 41, 54, 55, 114, 122, 123, 126, 127,'128) 129, 134, 142-143. 57, 93, 135, 173. 56, 152, 175. 93, 115, 136, 138, 143. 22} 23,'93, 138, 150, 154, 158, 160, 202. 135, 136. 11, 134, 151, 153. 11, 26, 134, 135, 136. 134. 138. APPENDIX 3 HOUSEHOLDS IN ORDER OF WEALTH The following list of Panajachel Indian house- holds includes all that were in the community studied in 1936. The families are ordered accord- ing to wealth (rich to poor) as judged by the fol- lowing: (1) The opinions of two Indians, labeled SY and BC, who are themselves found in places 49 and 58, respectively, in the list. Independently they graded each of the families on a scale of from 1 to 100, whereupon the households could be put in order of wealth. The results are seen in columns 2 and 3 of the final list, where the numbers repre- sent the order of wealth (according to the two who gave judgment) and not the grades given. (2) Their standing in the scales of the value of land owned and of land controlled, as shown in columns 3 and 4. (3) Other indications of wealth, such as houses and stock and sources of income other than agriculture. The num- ber and kinds of houses, of domestic animals, and of fruit trees cannot be shown in the list because so much data would make it even more unwieldy than it is. Whenever there was doubt, I trusted the inform- ants’ judgment—where it was clear. Obviously, neither they nor I can tell how accurate the judg- ments are, but clearly the extremes are well defined and families are not far out of place. Data concerning the number of persons (men, women, boys, girls, and infants) are included in the list because they help to explain in many cases why families are richer or poorer than their land- holdings would indicate. For the same reason, special occupations are noted. The numbers of Panajachelefio households run from 1 to 132; it will be noted that the two polygy- nous cases are each treated by bracketing the households in spite of the fact that informants judged each separately. The foreign-Indian house- holds are included in the list in their places on the wealth scale, but they are given intermediate numbers preceded by “F.’’ Foreign Indians or foreign Indian families attached as ‘‘servants’’ to Panajachelefio (and in one case a foreign) house- holds are not numbered separately. The order number (column 1) is the key to the numbering of Indian houses on map 3. Judgment of— Land Number in family Order No. @ Special occupations on- sy BC Owned | trolled Total M B Ga ft 1 1 1 1 1 9 4 3 2 3 3 2 2 10 2 3 3 2 1 8 9 7 1 3 4 6 5 4 3 6 2 2 5 4 5 5 10 10 3 4 6 7 4 60 40 6 2 215 Dairying business. 7 10 vi 14 15 ll 3 4 Shaman. 8 13 9 7 8 5 4 all PE Pig butcher. 9 ll 14 3 6 6 3 ae Small dairying business. 10 9 17 10 4 4 1 |= 11 14 10 1l 36 10 3 5 Shaman, bleeder. 12 17 14 9 if 6 a 4 Marimba player. 13 20 8 20 12 4 1 1 14 14 25 34 14 8 3 2 CY) oN Lp re a a a [4 a Pe rem 1 1 = . 0) 15 24 10 40 38 8 3 .| Canoe business. EE a4 baer ter err pee ee] pee || Sexaeeees- 16 7 4 106 79 9 5 = 17 24 10 15 17 8 4 | Midwife, curer. 18 5 16 17 26 8 2 Caponizer, bleeder, masseur. 19 30 30 ll 5 1 20 12 40 16 18 2 1 21 63 25 6 5 vi 1 22 16 17 37 32 6 2 Curer. 23 21 17; 20 22 5 1 24 23 18 22 24 5 3 Bleeder. (pe eeeeea ces) ae ae ee | esse 2S: | scence sale 1 1 | 25 28 17 33 28 5 2 26 19 23 73 65 6 3 ! 27 28 34 19 20 8 3 _ Marimba player. 28 30 34 55 51 3 2 Shaman. 29 39 29 25 21 5 2 See footnotes at end of table, p. 219. 217 218 HOUSEHOLDS IN ORDER OF WEALTH Judgment of— Land Number in family (ee ae ee eee eee ee ee Order No. Special occupations SY BC | Owned | ,CO™, | Total M w B a I 30 17 61 56 25 6 2 3 31 61 2 28 33 6 1 2 32 92 25 36 31 wh ut 2 33 24 36 65 61 3 1 1 34 30 37 21 27 3 1 1 35 30 66 35 30 ll 4 3 36 36 30 78 69 2 1 1 37 36 61 99 74 3 1 1 Canoe business, marimba, baker, netter. 38 39 30 117 99 4 3 1 Shaman, bleeder. 39 39 37 119 116 6 2 1 Mason. F39a 82 10 0 0 3 1 ps [mers | RED Uh Parsee ot Full-time butcher. 40 99 40 12 16 5 1 2 41 68 49 31 29 4 a 2 42 39 53 49 46 8 3 3 43 22 65 61 48 9 4 2 44 30 66 52 49 a 2 2 45 58 25 67 63 3 2 1 Mason, carpenter. F45a 82 14 0 0 2 1 Z Full-time butcher. 46 39 66 26 34 5 2 nt 47 39 : 38 35 vf : Fr : 24 ‘2 ee 78 40 58 = co 145 2 49 63 39 61 78 4 i 2 Caponizer, 50 39 66 97 82 Xa eee 1 51 39 76 13 13 5 1 2 52 39 76 24 23 3 uh 1 53 55 53 62 59 5 1 2 (03) | |e Peer beeper eed peer eer 3 1 1 54 55 62 18 19 5 2 2 55 88 30 45 44 7 2 Ladinoized teacher. 56 35 76 7 67 3 1 Z 57 36 82 43 43 4 1 1 58 39 53 63 60 9 3 2 2 | Pig butcher. 69 68 40 48 45 4 1 2 Mason; restaurateur 60 62 49 110 109 4 I 2 61 63 53 41 41 4 1 1 62 63 82 39 37 1G) eee 1 Curer, weaver. 63 68 53 42 42 6 1 2 i 64 68 63 63 50 5 3 1 65 68 64 47 39 6 4 1 Shaman, bleeder, 66 74 40 96 93 7 4 1 Shaman. 67 92 40 46 53 3 1 1 68 92 40 92 88 3 1 1 =lscetesee F68a 82 53 (2) () 4 1 1 Full-time mason. 69 88 53 92 4 2 2 70 99 53 91 87 9 3 4 71 68 66 84 105 6 3 2 72 98 75 27 56 3 1 1 F72a 99 75 0 0 2 1 1 73 39 76 112 lll 6 1 1 74 74 76 74 66 5 2 a 75 74 76 86 77 6 4 2 76 39 85 116 68 4 3 1 F76a 39 93 (8) () 5 1 1 V7 39 93 102 3 Z 1 78 57 93 57 52 3 1 1 79 78 85 68 64 2 1 1 a 0 33 . . 4 3 ot Midwit 3 le, weaver. alt 8 uso |} 8 84 of 1 [ees ___.| Barber, adobe maker 82 78 87 105 103 5 1 1 83 63 93 44 98 2 1 1 84 82 93 59 55 5 1 i 85 92 93 70 58 5 1 a F85a 96 84 (*) (‘) 8 2 3 86 99 87 77 75 6 2 2 87 39 103 102 94 8 1 3 F87a 39 110 () (8) 4 1 1 88 74 103 71 4 7 1 89 58 110 82 73 4 1 a 90 60 110 81 72 4 1 2 |; F90a 82 110 0 0 5 2 1 Carpenter. 91 88 108 101 85 4 1 1 92 88 121 32 57 8 2 5:1. Shaman, 93 99 99 30 7 fi R 1 Weaver. 94 99 99 1l4 113 6 2 1 95 133 66 95 119 8 3 5 Shaman, bleeder. 96 133 73 71 89 7 a 3 97 135 87 90 86 vi 3 2 98 135 87 104 101 3 1 1 99 99 101 122 121 4 1 3 100 99 103 109 108 3 2 1 Marimba player. 101 99 103 113 112 6 2 1 102 99 107 88 83 6 2 2 103 99 108 103 100 8 2 4 104 99 115 111 110 3 2 1 Curer, weaver. 105 99 116 93 90 6 3 2 Ex-butcher. 106 99 116 100 96 3 2 1 Bleeder. Fi0é6a 99 116 0 0 4 2 1 107 135 1l4 76 62 4 1 a 108 99 119 123 122 3 at 1 Messenger-carrier. 109 138 102 125 124 7 4 2 110 96 121 60 47 3 1 1 111 99 119 68 125 2 1 1 See footnotes at end of table, p. 219. HOUSEHOLDS IN ORDER OF WEALTH 219 a Order No. Judgment of— sy BO 99 121 99 121 99 121 99 121 99 121 99 121 138 121 138 121 99 131 99 131 138 131 138 131 138 131 138 131 138 131 138 131 82 151 99 140 99 140 99 140 99 140 99 140 99 140 99 140 147 121 99 149 147 140 149 149 151 131 149 151 151 151 151 154 155 154 165 154 155 154 Land Con- Owned | trolled 79 70 80 104 115 114 120 117 83 118 121 120 72 80 0 0 75 95 0 0 0 0 87 81 94 91 107 106 108 107 118 115 0 0 0 0 124 1233 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Number in family Total M Ww B 3 i 3) aoc hee 6 1 5 2 6 1 4 1 6 1 5 ol 3 il ld eee 3 1 Zl cancoc eee 4 1 fd meee Gill ocsasces 4 1 3 1 6 4} 7 1 5 2 3 1 4 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 5 1 3 1 2) | ccncseccce 4 1 >) eee ee 2 1 2 1 3 1 5 1 Curer. Shaman. Weaver. Special occupations Restaurateur. Farm foreman, Full-time mason, Pig butcher. Full-time restaurateur. Drummer, 1 Foreign servant(s). 2 Land value: $13.50. 3 Land value: $214.50. 4 Land value: $19.50. 5 Land value: $79.50. GLOSSARY The glossary is divided into three parts: the “General” glossary gives the meanings in Pana- jachel of Spanish terms used in the text. The glossaries of plants and animals include in alpha- betical order all but the most common ones men- tioned in the text, whether in English, Spanish, or Indian. Following each term is (1) the Pana- jachel Spanish equivalent of the English name used, if there is a Spanish equivalent; or (2) the Indian equivalent in the International Phonetic Alphabet if the term used is a translation or cor- ruption, and (3) the scientific term. The botan- ical and zoological identifications are taken from Villacorta, 1926—indicated by (V); Mejia, 1927 (M); Rojas, 1936 (R); Wisdom, 1940, unpublished addenda, (W), who credits identifications of plants in the Chorti region to Dr. Paul Standley of the Field Museum; and McBryde, 1940 (Mc), most of whose identifications are credited to literary sources, especially Standley, and a few to the University of California herbarium to which he brought specimens. Some animal identifications were taken from signs in the Zoological Park in Guatemala City. GENERAL Alambique, an aguardiente (hard liquor primarily of sugar) distilled in copper kettles. Alcalde, mayor; a civil office, now legally nonexistent in Guatemala, whose functions, administrative and ju- dicial, are now performed by the intendente; in Pana- jachel, the highest annually changing civil office in the Indian hierarchy. Alquacil, constable; a civil officer with functions, in a small town like Panajachel, of messenger, laborer, janitor, and policeman. Almul (or almud), dry weight measure for grains ranging from 8 to 17 pounds. In Panajachel 12 or 12.5 pounds. Arroba, a unit of weight equal to 25 pounds. Auxiliar, probably short for regidor auziliar, auxiliary regidor; an office in the municipal government. Ayudante, or regidor ayundante, assistant to a regidor; an office in the municipal government. Banda, woven sash-belt; in Panajachel usually the kind made elsewhere and bought. 220 Barril, a liquid measure equal to 2 demijohns or 22 bottles. Caballeria, land measure equal to 64 manzanas or 110.464 acres. Caites, sandals, usually made of a single sole with attached leather thongs which are passed between the first two toes and around the heel. Calzén, drawers; in Panajachel usually the home-woven and sewed variety. Calzoncillo, drawers; in Panajachel a long white variety that approaches trousers in appearance. Cédula de vecindad, personal identification pocket booklet, required by law for every adult and issued by the intendencia. Chica, a fermented drink made of panela and a variety of Spanish plums. Cinta, ribbon; specifically the long strip worn in the wom- an’s hairdress. Cofrade, the highest official of a cofradié, and an office in the politico-religious hierarchy. Cofradia, confraternity; a group of men, consisting of a cofrade and two or three mayordomos, who have the stewardship of a saint for a year; also, the house of the cofrade where the saint is kept. Colono, a laborer living permanently on a plantation. Copal, a kind of incense that comes in small disks. Corredor, porch of a house, consisting of the space formed by extension of the eave of one side of the house sup- ported by posts. Corte, a wrap-around shirt; also, a length of cloth. Cuerda, land measure; in Panajachel usually 32 varas square (0.178 acre). Culata, annex of a house consisting of an extension using & wall of the original house as one of its walls. Faja, woven sash-belt; in Panajachel, usually the home- woven variety. Fiscal, treasurer; an office of the religious hierarchy of the Indians. Gaban, in Panajachel, a woolen cloak worn by some of the men. Galera, a wall-less house structure consisting of a roof sup- ported by posts. Habilitador, a labor contractor. Huipil, blouse, usually without tailored sleeves. Intendente, the highest authority of a municipio, appointed by the President of the Republic. Jefe politico, the administrative head of a Department, appointed by the President of the Republic. Jefetura, the administrative building or office of the De- partment; office of the jefe politico. Juzgado, court of law; town hall, now officially called intendencia instead. GLOSSARY 921 Ladino, a non-Indian; a class of persons who speak Spanish, dress in European-type clothes and in general are representatives of the Spanish cultural tradition rather than the Indian. Machete, a cutting tool; in Panajachel a factory-made knife with a short handle and a long blade. Mancuerna, a package of 2 balls, or 4 tapas of panela. Mandamientos, a system of enforced labor whereby em- ployers sought and were given quotas of laborers. Manzana, land measure, 100 varas square, equal to 1.736 acres. : Mayor, or alquacil mayor, an office in the municipal gov- ernment and in the Indian hierarchy. Mayordomo, majordomo, an official of a cofradia, and the politico-religious organization. Milpa, cornfield, in which is grown principally corn, beans, and squash. Monte, the territory outside of town; rural, whether wooded or not. : Mozo, common laborer, field hand. Municipio, township, the smallest political unit into which Guatemala is divided. Olla, an aguardiente (distilled liquor primarily of sugar) often flavored with fruit, in which earthenware vessels are utilized in the making. Ornato, a head tax, the proceeds of which are spent on public works. Panela, brown, noncrystallized sugar, usually sold in Panajachel in large balls, two of which form a man- cuerna, half of each a tapa. Patrén, an employer, usually for a long period of time. Peso, in the old currency, a unit of money now equal to 1% cents, in terms of which negotiations are still carried on. Pinole, a beverage made, in Panajachel, of toasted and ground dry kernels of corn. Principal, an elder of the community; a man who has passed through most of the offices of the politico- religious hierarchy. Pueblo, town; the smallest category—followed by villa and citudad—of community that is the seat of govern- ment of a municipio; in Panajachel applied to the whole delta portion as opposed to the monte districts. Pulique, a meat dish; especially a sauce with which meat or fowl is served. Quintal, a unit of weight equal to 100 pounds avoirdupois. Recomendado, checked; an article left with somebody until called for. Red, a mesh bag open at both ends, used to pack loads for transport and storage. Regidor, councilman; an office in the municipal govern- ment and in the Panajachel legal and extralegal hierarchy. Rodillera, a small woolen blanket worn by men—in Pana- jachel, wrapped around the waist and extending to the knees. Rosquito, a kind of doughnut-shaped cookie of wheat flour. Sacristan, sacristan; an official of the church and of the Panajachel religious hierarchy. Sandalia, a sandal built more like a shoe than a caite. Sute or tzute, a cloth worn as a headpiece. Tabloén, a garden bed; a rectangular raised bed, separated from others by gutters into which water for irrigation is admitted. Tamal, a dumpling made of boiled and ground corn and often other ingredients, wrapped in leaves and steamed or boiled. Tapa, half of a ball of panela. Tarea, stint, a unit of work, usually the amount that a man can do in one day, but varying widely with the type of work. Tortilla, a griddle cake of boiled and ground corn. Totoposte, a large, much toasted tortilla carried on journeys Vara, a Spanish linear measure of 36 Spanish inches or about 33 English inches. Zarabanda, a public dance in a tavern or cofradia PLANTS Alusema. Not identified. Amaranth (bledo). Amaranthus paniculatus L.? (Mc); A, p. (R); A. retoplezus L. (M). Amate. Ficussp. (W, M); F. pluribus (V); F. tecolutensis? (R). Avocado (aguacate). Persea americana Mill. (W, Mc); P. gratisima Gatum (V); P. gratistma Gaerth (M). Ayote. Cucurbita pepo L. (W, M, V). Balsamito seed. Not identified. Barrej’on. Not identified. “Bird’s claw” vine (sk’yeq¢’ikin). Not identified. “Bitter sunflower” (girasol amargo). Not identified. “Buzzard tree’ (palo de zope). Derris grandifolia (R). Cajete. Achioma lagopas (M). Capulin. Trema micrantha (R, W); Tila argentia (M). Castor tree (higuerillo). Ricinus communis L. (V, W, M). Cayu. Not identified. Chichicaste. Urera baccifera (L.) Graudichaud (W, Mc); Urtica sp. (M); U. diottica (V). Chichipate. Sweetia panamensis Bentham (W). Chilacayote. Cucurbita ficifolia Bouché (W); C. citrulus (V). Chilea. Thevitia nerifolia (M. V.). Chipilin. Crotalaria vitellina (R); C. guatimalensis (V); C. striata (M); C. longirostrata (Mc); C. l. Hook & Arn. (W). Chipoc. Not identified. Choreque. Not identified. Cidra. Citrus medica L. (Me, M, V). Cintula. Not identified. Col. Some kind of cabbage called “‘salt cabbage’’ in the Indian language, not identified. Coral tree (palo de pito). Erythrina corallodendrum L. (M, V, Mc); E. rubrinervia H. B. K. (W, Me); E. cristagallis (V). Cordoncillo. Piper sp. (W); P. angustipolium Ruiz y Pay. (M); P. Rus & Paw (V); P. longium (V). Coriander (culantro). Coriandrum sativum L. (W, M). Coyol, Acrocomia vinifera Oersted (Me, W, M); A. mext- cana (R); A. scherocarpa (V). Cross-sapodilla (injerto). Calocarpum viride Pittier (Mc). Cuajilote. Parmentiera adulis (R); P. adulis D. C. (M). 222 GLOSSARY Cuchin. Not identified. Custard-apple (anona). Annona cherimola (Mc); A. diversifolia Safford (W); A. reticulata (M, V); A. squamosa (R). “Deer’s tongue” (lengua de venado). officinalis (R). Easter flower (flor de pascua). (V). Elder tree (sanco). locally. “Flower of death’ (flor de muerte). (M); 7. patula doble (V). Granadilla. Passiflora ligularis (Mc, M, W); P. edulis (V); Brya specialis (M, V). Guachipilin. Pithecolobrium albicans (M); Dyphysa bobi- noides (M). Guave (guayaba). Psidium guajava L. (Mc, M); P. pomiferum (V); P. cerstedianum Berg (W). Huis. Solanum capense (V). Huskcherry (miltomate). Physalis sp. (W, Mc); Me- Bryde calls the species found in Guatemala uncertain, but suggests pubescens L. Ilamo. Almus acuminata (R). Indigo (jiquilite). Indigofera suffruticosa Miller (W,Mc); I. anil L. (M): Jacobina tintoria (V). Scolopendrium Euphorbia pulcherrima Several varieties known by this name Tajetes erecta L. Jabillo. Hura polyandra Baillon (W); H. Crepitans L. (M,V). Laurel (Laurel). Litsea glaucense (R); Nectandria sp. (M). Lima. Citrus limetta Risso (Mc). “Lime tea” (té de limon). Andropogan citratus (V,M); Cymbogogan c. (DC) Stamf (W); C. nardus (L) Rendle (Mc). “Little broom’ (escobilla). Madrone (palo de jiote). aruba (L.) Sarg. (W). Maguey (maguey). Furcraea sp. (M,Mc,R); agave sp. (Mc). McBryde mentions several species of Agave. Sida rhombifolia (M,V). Busera mexicana (V); B. sim- Maicena. Not identified. Melocoton. Sicana odorifera (Vell.) Naudin (Mc,W). Membrillo. Cydonia oblonga Miller (W); C. vulgaris Pers. (M). Metabel. Not identified. Mint (hierba buena). virides L. (M,V). “Mother of Maize’? (madre de maiz). (R). “Mouse ear” vine (raéikinéoy). Not identified. “Mouth of the dragon” (boca de dragén). Lamourouzia visciosa (VY). “Mulberry herb” (hierba mora). Solanum nigrum (M,V). Nance. Brysonima crassifolia L. (Mc,W): B.c. HB & K (M); B. cantifolia HB & K (M,V). Nogal. Jugland pyriformis Liebermann (W); J. regia (V,M); J. nigra (V,M). Oak (encino, roble), A number of species. Orégano. Origanum vulgare L. (M,W). Pacaya. Chamaedorea sp. (W,V); C. graminifolia Wend- land (Mc); C. g. Wendalandia & Schiedeana (Me); C. bifurcata (M). Pataxte. Theobromo bicolor (M); T.b. Hum. & Boupl. (W). Mentha citrata Ehrhart (W); M. Ustilago maydis? Paterna. Inga sp. (W): I. spectabilis (V). Pega pega. Turenthia lappacea; Desmodium incinatum (M). Pepino. Solanum muricatum Aiton (Mc). This is the Spanish word for cucumber, but it is not the cucumber. Pepitoria. Cucurbita pepo L. (W). Pimienta gorda. Pimenta officinalis Lindley (W). Prickly pear (tuna). Opuntia sp. (Mc); O. dejecta (V); O. Monocantha (V); Platyopuntia (Mc). Purslane (verdolaga). Portulaca campestre (R); P. sp. (M); P. parviflora (V). Pus (p’us). Not identified. Queché. q’etfe’. Not identified. “‘Rose-apple” (manzana rosa). Eugenia jambos L. Sp. PI. (Mc,V); Jambosa vulgaris (M). Rosemary (romero). Rosmarinus officinales L. (W,M,V). Rue (ruda). Ruta chalepensis L. (W); R. graveolens L. (V,M). Sabagasta. Aristida scabra (R). Sajoc (saxok). Not identified. Sapodilla (zapote). Achras zapote (M); Lacuma mammosa (V); Z. m. Gaertn. (M); Calocarpum mammosum (L.) Pierre (W). Sedge (tule). Typha latifolia (R); Cyperus canus Preal (W). Silk oak (gravilea). Gravillea robusta (V); G. r. Cunn (Me). : “Skunk plant” (hierba de zorro). Croton dioicus (R). Soapseed tree (jaboncillo). Sapindus saponaria L. (M, V,W). Spanish plum (jocote). Spondias purpurea L. Sp. PI. (Me, W, M, V). “Sunflower of the rocks” (giransol de la piedra). Not identified. “Sweatbath plant’”’ (hierba de temazcal). thifolia (R). Sweet cassava (yuca). Manihot esculenta Crantz (W); M. dulcis (Crmel.) Pax (Me). Sweetpotato (camote). IJpomea batatas (Mc). Tamarisk shrub (taray). Hysenhareitia adenostylis (R); Mimosa sp. (M); Caesalpina bonducella (M). Taxisco. Perymenium turckheimu (V); P. t. Vatke (M). Toronja. Citrus decumina (R). Tziquinay (¢’ikinay). Not identified. Vegetable pear (giiisquil). Sechiwm edule Swartz (W, M, V). White sapodilla (matasano). Casimiroa edulis (Mc). “White soap” (saq¢upaq). Not identified. Willow (sauce). Salix sp. (M); S. alba (M). Yucca tree (izote). Yucca guatemalensis (R); Y. elephan- tipes Regel (W); Y. gloriosa (V, M). Zacatinta. Fuchsia parviflora (R); Jacobina tinctoria Hemls. (M). Rhus terebin- ANIMALS Armadillo (Armado). Buzzard (zopilote.) Coati (pizote). (Zoo). Coxpin (Kospin). Tatusian novencienta (M, V). Catharista atrata, Lawr. (M, V). Nasia nasica L. (M, V); Nasua narica An unidentified bee or wasp. GLOSSARY 225 Coyote (coyote). Canis letrans, Say (M, V). Deer (venado). Cariacus virginianus Brok (M, V). Grackle (sanate). Quiscalus macrurus, Scl (P, M, V). “‘Honey-bear’’ (oso colmenero). Myrmecophaga jubata M. tetradactyla Sim. Hummingbird (gorri6n). Many species. “Lazy bird” (p&jaro haragan). Not identified. Mojarra. Cichlasoma guttulatum, Gunther (Me, P). Opossum (tecuacin.) Didelphys virginiana, Kn. (M, Vi, P): Porcupine (puerco espin). Rabbit (conejo). Syntherés puntacta (M, V). Lepus palustris (M, V). Raccoon (mapache). (M, V). Skunk (zorillo). Mephitis mephitica, Baird (M, V); M. putorius, Cones (V); Conepatus mapurito, Cones Procyon lotor (P, zoo); P. l. Allen (V). Taltuza. Geomys hispidus (M, V, P); G. mezicanus (P). Tepescuintle. Caelogenys paca, Sim (M, V); C. p. (zoo); Geomys p. (P). Weasel (comadreja). Mustela brasiliensis, Sew. (M, W). Widgeon (gallareta). Mareca americana, Sel. (M, V). Wildcat (gato de monte). Vulpes virginianus, Baird (M, V, zoo). LITERATURE CITED BunzeE., Rortu L. n. d. Chichicastenango. MS. (1938). CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON. 1940. Maize cultivation in northwestern Guatemala. Compiled ... from data collected in the field by Raymond Stadelman. Publ. No. 523, Contr. 33, pp. 83-266. 1944. Yearbook No. 43 (1943-44). Ex IMPARCIAL. 1937. Guatemala. Govusaup CarRERA, ANTONIO. 1946. Estudio de la alimentacién de Guatemala. Bol. Inst. Indigenista Nacional, I, Nos. 2-3, pp. 31-45. Guatemala. GUATEMALA. n. d. Constitution of Guatemala. Guatemala. 1924. 4° Censo de la Republica de Guatemala (1921). Guatemala. 1927. Leyes vigentes. Guatemala 1937. Memoria de las labores del ejecutivo en el ramo de agricultura (1936). Guatemala. 1938. Memoria de las labores del ejecutivo en el ramo de agricultura (1937). Guatemala. 1939. Memoria de las labores del ejecutivo en el ramo de agricultura (1938). Guatemala. 1939 a. Memoria de las labores del ejecutivo en el ramo de hacienda y crédito piblico (1938). Guatemala. 1940. Memoria de las labores del ejecutivo en el ramo de hacienda y crédito publico (1939). Guate- mala. 1941. Memoria de las del ejecutivo en el ramode ha- cienda, y crédito publica (1940). Guatemala. 1942. 5° Censo de la Reptblica de Guatemala (1940). JONES, CHESTER LLOYD. 1940. Guatemala past and present. Knieut, F. H. 1941. Anthropology and economics. Journ. Political Economy, vol. 49, pp. 247-268. Chicago. LanaeE, Oscar. 1945-46. The scope and method of economics. Rev. Economie Studies, vol. 13 (1), No. 33. London. Maupstay, Mrs. ANNe Carry (Morris), and Maupstay, ALFRED PERCIVAL. 1899. A glimpse at Guatemala, and some notes on the ancient monuments of Central America. London. Minneapolis. McBrype, Frevix WEBSTER. 1933. Solol4: A Guatemalan town and Cakchiquel market-center ... Tulane Univ., Middle Amer. Res. Ser., Publ. No. 5, pp. 45-152. New Orleans. 1936. Map of Lake Atitldin region of Guatemala. 224 1947. Cultural and historical geography of Southwest Guatemala. Smithsonian Inst., Inst. Soc. Anthrop. Publ. No. 4. Mega, J. V. 1927. Geografia de la Reptiblica de Guatemala. 2d ed. Guatemala. Mé£npeEz, Rosenpo P. 1927. Leyes vigentes. Guatemala. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGY, 1949. Research needs in the field of modern Latin American culture. Amer. Anthrop., vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 149-154. O’NEaLE, Lina M. 1945. Textiles of Highland Guatemala. Inst. Wash. Publ. No. 567. RepDFIELD, RoBERT, and Vita R., ALFONSO. 1934. Chan Kom, a Maya village. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. No. 448. 1939. Notes on the ethnography of Tzeltal communi- ties of Chiapas. I. Carnegie Inst. Washing- ton Publ. No. 509, pp. [105]}-119. ROSALES, JUAN DE Dios. 1949. Notes on San Pedro la Laguna. Microfilm Collection of Manuscripts on Middle Ameri- can Cultural Anthropology, No. 25. Chicago. SmitrH, ADAM. 1937. Inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. New York, Modern Library. See CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF CoMMITTEE ON LATIN Carnegie STADELMAN, RAYMOND. WASHINGTON. STIEBELING, HazEL KATHERINE, and PurparpD, ESTHER F. 1939. Diets of families of employed wage earners and clerical workers in cities. U. S. Dept. Agric., Cire. 507. Tax, Sor. 1937. The municipios of the midwestern highlands of Guatemala. Amer. Anthrop., vol. 39, pp. 423-444. 1941. World view and social relations in Guatemala. Amer. Anthrop. vol. 43, pp. 27-42. 1942. Ethnic relations in Guatemala. América Indi- gena, vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 43-48. Mexico. 1950. Panajachel: Field notes. Microfilm Collection of Manuscripts on Middle American Cultural Anthropology, No. 29. Chicago. VAzqueEz, FRANCISCO. 1937. Crénica de la provincia del santisimo nombre de Jestis de Guatemala. 2ded. Guatemala. LITERATURE CITED 220 VILLACORTA, CALDERON Jos£ ANTONIO. 1926. Monografia del Departamento de Guatemala. Guatemala. WAGLEY, CHARLEs. 1941. The economics of a Guatemalan village. Ameri- can Anthropological Association, Mem. 58. WaucHopr, RosBert. 1938. Modern Maya houses, a study of their archaeo- logical significance. ington Publ. No. 502. WEBER, Max. 1947. The theory of social and economic organization. London. WispoM, CHARLES. 1940. The Chorti Indians of Guatemala. not published.) Chicago. Carnegie Inst. Wash- (Addenda GENERAL INDEX' Adobe making, 93, 96, 134, 145, 147 Agriculture, temperate, 2 tropical, 1-2 See also Crops. Agua Escondida, 62, 139 Alta Vera Paz, 144 fn. Animals, see Domesticated animals; Fauna, wild. Artisans, 96, 97, 121, 134, 183, 191, 194 See also Adobe-maker; Carpenter; Mason. Atiteco, 31, 96, 122, 128 Atitecos, 6 fn., 135, 136 fn., 140, 152 Atitlin, 1, 2, 6 fn., 11, 14, 30, 31, 96, 106, 119, 123, 126, 127, 151, 159, 160, 185 Baker, 96, 134, 164, 175 Balance of payments, 183-184 Baptism, 178 Barbering, 96, 181 Bargaining, 136, 136 fn. Beliefs, about animals, 32 as distinct from ‘‘foreign’”’ Indians, ill omens, 32 impeding economic judgment, 16 on electricity, 20 toward nature, 29 toward supernatural, 29, 130 Births, 87, 98, 178 rate of, 6 Blacksmith, 23, 27, 134 Bloodletter, 95, 98 Bunzel, Ruth, 137 Butcher, 22-23, 96, 119, 122 fn., 123 fn., 134, 142, 164, 175, 191 Buying for consumption, 133-136 Cabrera, Manuel Estrada, President, 106 Canoe, manufacture of, 31 renting, 96, 97 transportation, 126, 127 use in hunting, 32 Cantel, 20, 26 Capitalism, ix, 13 fn. Caponizer, 95, 98, 164 Carnegie Institution of Washington, x, 163 Carpenter, 27, 95, 96, 134, 145, 146, 175 Ceremonies, 177-181 governmental, 86, 177 religious, 86 See also Fiestas; Births; Funerals; Harvesting rites. Cerro de Oro, 105, 133 fn., 136, 139 Chiapas, 8 Chicacao, 2, 123, 127 Chichicastenango, 6 fn., 11, 14, 35, 100 fn., 107, 119 fn., 122, 123, 133, 135, 136, 144 fn., 145, 150, 151, 158, 160, 185, 206-207 Maxeino, 6 fn., 133 fn., 135, 136 Children, providing for, 206 See also Labor, division of. Chimente, 25 fn., 26 Church, 57, 83, 85, 108, 178, 204 Classes, economic, 181, 184, 190 social, 7, 206-207 See also Wealth groups. Climate, 4, 29-30 1 The final manuscript was prepared, proof read, and index made with the excellent assistance of Mrs. June Nash, whose intelligence, patience, care, and industry are here gratefully acknowledged. Clothing, 30, 136, 205 cost, 153-154, 184 See also table 63, 161-163. manufacture, 93-94, 1338, 151-154 men’s, 150-151 women’s, 151 See also Costumes. Community service, 86, 103, 181 See also Political-religious hierarchy; Officials. Comparison with neighboring communities, 11 Competition, ix, 15, 19, 27-28 effect on prices, 137, 186 in clothing, 202 in selling, 133 fn. acs D7 99, 107, 128, 127, 133, 145, 152, 159, 160, 163, iL Concepciofieros, 133 fn., 145, 163 Consumer goods, 133-154 See also Commodity index, Appendix 2, 210-216. Contractors, 96 See also Adobe-making; Carpenter; Mason. Costs, agricultural, 109-117 animal husbandry, 117-121 clothing 153-154, 160-163 food, 168-169, 174 houses, 146-147 Costumes, distinction from Ladinos and “‘foreign” Indians, 8 foreign, 160 men’s and boys’, 158-159 wealth differences, 187-188 women’s and girls’, 159 Credit, ix, 13-14 See also Land, pawned. Crops, combinations, 46-47 determination of choice, 128, 129 innovations, 128, 180-131, 186 value, 184 yield, beans, squash, 52, 113 coffee, 56, 131 corn, 49-52, 108-110 garlic, 54, 113 herbs, 55 measuring, 190 onions, 53-54, 110-112, 130 pepinos, 114, 131 possibilities of increasing, 128 tablén, 110-116 fruit, 56, 115 vegetables, 114 tubers, 55, 114 Cubuleo, 135 Cult of the Saints, 177 Curers, 95, 96, 98, 180, 195 curing ritual, 177 Dances, 163, 177, 183 Death, 178-180, 193 mortality rates, 6, 28, 30 Diet, 9 fn., 24, 28, 129, 163-174, 185, 200-201 Domestic production, see Houses, building; Furniture; Clothing, manufacture. Domestic servants, 99, 101 fn. Domesticated animals, pre-Conquest, 22 animal husbandry, 93, 117-121 value of produce, 108, 131, 142, 190-191 See also Commodity index, Appendix 2, 210— 216. for fertilizer, 128 227 228 GENERAL INDEX Drugs, 28, 177 Drunkenness, 12, 85, 97, 180, 181, 182 fn., 204 Dry goods, 134, 135 See also Furniture; Tools; Commodity index, Appen- dix 2, 210-216. Economic judgment, 128-131 Economic specialization, 1 See also Special occupations. Economy, characterized, ix, 13-18, 187 Efficiency of use of time, 85 See also Technology, efficiency of. Entrepreneurs, ix, 12, 18, 122 See also Merchants. Ethics, 12, 18-19, 205 Experimental milpa, 4 fn., 50, 100, 128-129, 189 Families, as economic unit, 6, 13, 17, 19, 128, 195-196 See also Labor, communal, family. as wealth unit, 189, 199-200, 206, 207 census, 9-10, 11 in the market, 123, 125 housing of, 144-145 routine of living, 148-150 sample in food survey, 163-174 Fauna, wild, 29, 32-33 Fertilizer, 12, 24, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 56, 92, 111, 114, 116, 116 fn., 128, 129, 131 Fiestas, 10, 12, 93, 97, 103, 125, 125 fn., 132, 138, 177, 178, 181 Fines, 182 Firth, Raymond, x Fishing, 31 Fish-net making, 93, 96, 164 Flora, wild, 29, 33-35, 131 Food, 98, 133, 163-174, 185, 205 differences in consumption correlated with wealth, 200-201 value, 183 See also Diet; Commodity index, Appendix 2, 210-216. Folklore, 18 Fruit, consumption, 173-174 production of, 27, 56-57, 93 profit, 116 sale of, 12, 122, 123, 126, 127, 134, 138, 143 yield, 56, 115 value, 191 wild, 33 Fuente, Julio de la, 185 fn. Funerals, 87, 179-180 Furniture, 11, 133, 134, 147-148, 154-158, 174, 191 Genealogies, 188-189 Geography, 1-2, 4 See also Climate. Gifts, at marriage, 179 for favors, 180, 183 occasions, 171, 181 orientation toward, 17 to godparents, 180 to practitioners, 98 Godines, 127 Godparents, 159, 178, 180 Goubaud Carrera, Antonio, 163 Government regulations, abolition of debt peonage, 107 in the market, 15-16 identification papers, 182 law of vagrancy, 105, 107 on housing, 145 on inheritance, 80 on labor, 103, 105-108 See also Mandamientos. See also Taxes. Guatemala, 1,2, 8, 10, 25, 26, 28, 29, 55, 105, 106, 131, 136, nh. Guatemala City, 2, 4, 20, 24, 62, 69, 122, 123, 126, 127, 128, 138, 139,140, 141, 143, 163 fn., 186 Habilitadores, 106 Harvesting, ceremonial costs, 109 hiring labor, 99, 102, 198 rites, 178 See also Crops, yields. Herskovitz, Melville, x Holy Week, 23, 56, 96, 101, 104, 125, and 125 fn., 127, 130, 134, 141, 170, 171, 172, 175, 178 fn. Hoselitz, Burt, 13 fn. Household goods, 11, 174-176, 183 See also Commodity index, Appendix 2, 210-216. Housekeeping, 21, 30, 87-88, 90, 94, 148-150 Houses, building, 93, 104, 105, 145-147 cost, 146-147, 184 comparison with those of the United States, 185 differences because of wealth, 199-200 kinds, 1438-145 Ladinos, 188 pre-Contact, 21, 24 values, 147-148, 154-158, 191 Illegitimate children, 203 Illiteracy, 7, 15, 107, 176 Inheritance, houses, 143 land, 72 case histories, 72-80 personal property, 79 rules, 79 Innovation, 12, 28-29, 128, 130, 186 Irrigation, 6, 30, 39, 52, 57, 59, 98, 103, 113, 129, 149 Jaibal, Delia, 1 Jones, Chester Lloyd, 105-106 Kidder, A. V., x Labor: agricultural, 98-100, 116-117, 190 beans, 113 coffee, 114-115 onions, 53, 110-111 on milpa, 92, 99, 109 truck, 99 See also Truck Farming. on hill land, 109 on old land, 109 on the tablén, 110-116 communal, 1 community, see Community service. family, 103-104 work exchange, 104 foreign, 99, 117 hired, 12, 17, 91 fn., 98-105, 109, 121, 128, 148, 195- 199, 205 Labor, division of, by sex and age, 90-95 in pottery making, 25-26, 27 fn. Labor practices, 100-105 hours, 100, 101, 109 Labor unions, 28 Ladinos: as consumers, 32, 34, 93 fn., 122, 133, 1839-140, 141, 148 as employers, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 197 as entrepreneurs, 122 as godparents, 159, 178 census, 26-27 contributions from, 178 fn. costumes, 151, 159, 160 GENERAL INDEX 229 Ladinos—Continued culture of, 4, 11, 20, 22, 23, 27, 31, 187-188 diet, 201 fn. distinction from Indians, 8, 10, 21 homes, 200 in special occupations, 14, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 97, 98, 133, 134 relations with Indians, 203 Ladinoized, 24, 25, 126 fn., 166 See also Land ownership, Ladinos; Land use by Ladinos; Land, renting; Land values; Land pawned. Lake Atitlin, 1-2, 30-32, 57 Land, as collateral, see Land, pawned. pawned, 68, 71, 80-81, 83, 84, 182, 190, 192-193 renting, 81-82, 104, 110, 111-112, 113, 114, 120, 190, 192-194 restrictions, 69 transfer of, 65, 68-72 use, 35-47, 36 (map 4), 55, 128 by Ladinos, 39-47 coffee or truck, 36 (map 4), 39, 40-44, 84, 190 corn, 36, 37, 39, 40, 44 delta, 2, 4, 38-40, 48, 82, 129, 190 hill, 2, 4, 35-38, 82, 108, 109, 190 lake shore, 57, 69, 70, 82 truck, 44-47, 82, 83 unutilizable, 38, 39 values, 82-84, 108, 110 as community wealth, 182-183 differences in value, 189-190 Indian-Ladino differences, 82, 83 in pawning, 193 Land ownership, and hiring labor, 198-199 and wealth, 189-190, 191, 192, 194-195, 205 common land, 45, 57-59 Indian, 59, 60, 63, 65-6 absentee, 59, 62, 65-66 resident, 59, 60, 61, 63, 66-68 Ladino, 39-44, 45, 62-65 absentee, 59, 60, 62, 63 resident, 59, 61 Landless, 65 Language, 7, 11, 187 Law, see Government regulations. Lawyers, 182 Learned, Jean, x Legal title (land), 69, 71-72 Lemoa, 151 Life crises, 177-180 See also Birth; Marriage; Death. McBryde, F. W., 1, 2, 4 fn., 14, 37 fn., 38 fn., 51, 59, 126 fn., 127 fn., 135 Mandamientos, 105-107 Market, ix, 11-12, 13, 14-15, 16-17, 122-123, 132, 133, 134-139 local, 123-125, 186 outside, 2, 125-128, 132 fiesta, 135 See also towns, listed separately. Marketing, 88, 94, 116, 121-128, 131-132, 186, 190 Marriage, 1, 9, 178-179, 202-203, 204, 207 to Ladinos, 188 Mason, 27, 95, 96, 134, 145, 175 Masseur, 95 Maudslay [Mrs. Anne Carry and Alfred Percival], 4 fn., 61 fn. Mazatenango, 2 Meat, 181, 138, 141-142 Messenger, 97 Merchants, 2, 13, 14, 15, 16-17, 30, 123-128, 133, 135, 136, 137, 183, 187, 191 Metals, see Tools. Methods of field study, ix, x, 186-191 defining community, 187-189 establishing wealth differences, 189-191 Midwife, 95, 98, 195 Military service, 95, 96, 105, 201 Milpa, 47-48, 108-110, 129, 131 See also Corn, Commodity index, 210-216; Land use, corn. Mixco, 12, 96, 122, 127, 143 Momostenango, 133, 150 Money, attitude toward, 18, 19 eash on hand, 118, 121, 18% kinds, 18 money economy, 13 See also Prices; Wages, payment. Monterrey, 6 Mozos, see Labor, hired. Musicians, 96-97, 164, 178 Appendix 2, Nahuald, 97, 127, 150, 158, 159, 160 Nahualefios, 128, 133 fn., 152 Ocana, Diego de, 66 fn. Officials, attaining community respect, 12, 205 comparison with Chichicastenango, 206-207 drinking, 181 fees, 178 functions, 86, 99, 103 governmental, 10, 99, 103, 177-178, 204 religious, 10, 103, 177-178, 205 See also Community service. Ogburn, W. F., x O’Neale, Lila, 152 fn. Panajachel River, 2, 4, 30, 57 Panimache, 145 Patanatic, 6, 133, 136, 139, 145 Patulul, 2, 123, 127 Patztin, 7, 34, 123, 125, 127, 134, 181 fn. Paul, Benjamin, 185 fn. Peonage, debt, 105-106, 107 Personal activities, 87, 95 Phipard, Esther F., see Stiebeling, Hazel Katherine. Plantations, 2, 6, 16, 105-107, 127, 205 Planting, 49, 51, 55 Political-religious organization, 7, 12, 19, 86, 158, 177-178, 188, 204, 205 Population, Panajachel, 6 Indian, 6-9 Ladino, 6-7 significance, 206 taking a census, 188 Pottery making, 25-26, 27 Practitioners, 97-98, 121 See also Shamans; Midwives; Curers. Prices, clothing, 152 comparison with those of United States, 185 effect on crops, 46 food, 111, 118, 136-143 See also Commodity index, Appendix 2, pp. 210-216. determinants of, 137 Government interference, 16 interest in, 17, 132, 133 movements, 138, 139 setting, 14-15 store, 134 Professionals, 121, 183, 191, 194-195 See also Shamans; Midwife; Bloodletter; Caponizer; Masseur. Profits, agriculture, 110-117 animal husbandry, 117-121 Protestants, 19, 181 Puerto Barrios, 50, 51 Quetzaltenango, 2, 62, 123, 127, 136, 151 Quiché, 151 Quixcap River, 1 930 GENERAL Rationality, economic, 15, 16, 17 Recomendado, 128, 143 fn. Redfield, Robert, x, 8 Reh, Emma, 185 fn., 200 fn. Religion, 95, 177 See also Political-religious religious, Renting, houses, 81, see Land renting. Restaurateurs, 97, 123 Rosales, Juan de Dios, x, 68, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 107, 108, 119, 122, 123 fn., 129 fn., 133 fn., 137 fn., 139, 140, 143 fn., 148 fn., 163, 169, 174, 185, 206. organization; Officials, Sale of produce, 121-123 See also Market; Merchants. San Andrés, 7 fn., 38, 62, 63, 66, 94, 106, 107, 122, 123, 125, 126, 128, 134, 136, 145, 151, 159, 160, 166, 202 Andresanos, 122, 136 fn., 145 San Antonio Palapo, 2, 6 fn., 11, 19, 31, 83, 127, 130, 131, 136 Antofieros, 6 fn., 107, 130 San Buenaventura, 2 San Cristobal, 136 San Jorge la Laguna, 1, 2, 41, 45, 65, 99, 100, 107, 111, 125, 183, 159 Jorgefios, 45, 46, 63, 65, 111, 130, 152 San José Chacaya, 62 San Lucas, 1, 2, 30, 104, 128, 126-127, 128, 136, 151 Luquefios, 122, 136 San Marcos, 26, 128 San Martin Jilotepeque, 4 fn. San Pablo, 26, 31, 136 Pablenos, 136 fn. San Pedro la Laguna, 11, 30, 31, 68, 123, 151, 158, 159, 160, 185 Pedranos, 31, 96, 145, 152 San Pedro Sacatepequez, 26 fn. San Pedro Volcano, 1 Santa Apolonia, 136 fn. Santa Catarina, 2 fn., 18-19, 30, 31, 34, 38, 51, 83, 84, 98, 99, 127, 131, 133, 136, 144 fn., 152, 159, 160, 185, 198 Catarinecos, 133 fn. Santa Cruz, 31, 128, 136 Cruzenos, 136 fn. Santa Lucia Utatlin, 7 fn., 102, 136 fn. Santander, 6 Santiago Chimaltenango, 185 Savings, 183 Security, economic, 204, 206 Shamans, 95, 97-98, 177, 180, 183, 191, 195 rites, 97, 98, 180 Sharecropper, 110 See also Land, pawned. Shopping, 133-154 See also Commodity index, Appendix 2, 210-216. Sickness, 4, 12, 29, 30, 188, 180, 193, 196, 205 Sklow, Isobel, 188 Smith, Adam, 18, 27 Social relations, 19 Soils, 129 Solold, 2, 4, 12, 14 fn., 20, 24, 31, 34, 44, 50, 56, 62, 63, 66, 69, 85, 93 fn., 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 104, 107, 108, 111, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 132, 138, 134, 1386, 140, 142, 143, 151, 152, 159, 160, 182, 183, 185, 186 Sololatecos, 102, 122, 163 Special occupations, 95, 98, 194-195 See also Butcher; Baker; Curers; Musicians; Shamans; Masseur; Bloodletter; Caponizer. Spices, 11, 133 fn., 134, 171 Standard of living, 12, 28, 35, 108, 154-186 (esp. 183-184), 196, 204-205 comparisons, 184-186 INDEX Storage, 129, 144 Stores, 14, 133-134, 136, 137, 188 Stiebeling, Hazel Katherine, and Phipard, Esther F., 164 Superstitions, see Beliefs, toward supernatural. Tablén, 110-116 Tax, Sol, 1, 8 Taxes, export, 16 liquor and tobacco, 16 market, 16, 116, 133 fn. ornato, 182 real estate, 182, 185 Technology, 19, 29, 35 agricultural, 27, 128 See also Milpa; Truck farming. assessment of level, 128-129 efficiency of, 24-27 European, 20-21, 22, 23, 25, 26-27 modern industrial, 20 pre-Columbian, 21, 27 Tecpan, 2, 14, 31, 34, 99, 104, 122, 123, 125, 125 fn., 127, 134, 136, 150 Tepanecos, 122, 136 fn., 143, 158 Textiles, 151-154 Toliman, voleano, 1 Tools, 11, 21, 27, 33, 48, 53, 116, 148, 175 See also Commodity index, Appendix 210-216. Totonicapdan, 2, 6, 25 fn., 26, 123, 136, 151, 152, 159, 160, 163, 201 Totonicapefios, 94 fn., 96, 122, 137 fn., 145, 151, 166, 170 fn., 188 Tourists, 96, 134, 186 Toys, 33, 148, 175 fn. Trade, ix, 1 world, 13, 138, 186 Transportation, 126, 127, 127 fn., 186 Truck farming, 60 crops, 52-53 labor, 92-99 lands, 39, 40-47 Tzanjuyu, 6, 106 Tzununa, 136 Vasquez, 1 Vegetables, 27, 41, 54, 55, 114, 122, 123, 126, 127, 128, 129, 134, 142-143 See also Commodity index, Appendix 2, 210-216. Villa Rojas, Alfonso, 8 Way of life, 11-13 Wages, basic rates, 101 comparison with nearby communities, 104 factors affecting, 103 payment, 88, 101-103 piece work, 102-103 special occupations, 96-98, 138, 147 fn., 190 Wagley, Charles, 185 fn. Wauchope, Robert, 144 fn., 145, 145 fn. Wealth, attitude toward, 18, 19 mobility, 193-204 significance of, 48, 126, 129-130, 186-207 wealthy class, 99, 184 determining rank, 189-191 See also Appendix 3, 217-219. Weaving, 11, 18, 21, 23, 26, 27, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 151-184 176, 194, 195 Weber, Max, 17 World view, ix, 18, 18 fn. Yields, see Crops. —- ONE INCH To ONE MILE LEGEND exe Gerne PRE: 606: sf OF A SETTLEMENT (RUINS, MOUNDS, Ee) | ++ MLVICIPIO BOUNDARIES (MUNICIPIO TAKES NAME OF (TS CHIEF SETTLEMENT.) MASOR ALLUVIAL AND COLLUVIAL AREAS STIPOLEO. (80K ENCLOSING PANAJACHEL AREA AQOED) SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION WASHINGTON, OC 1945 j * on Sente Maris SE Vistecidn S005 es te : - = . 5 PL ARE 34 <4 Posty aac oes a Be \ & : } eer j 4 Se, BPre/Soie sk — | / i morta “ ¢ —— — / eat i \ = = yay a ae ee Sa / “Seda ie" V { \ — ae y J . = y \ . \ ; ae \ —~ : - :. ow Om ree uae 1.—The yanion of Lake Atitiéa: ++. F444 goon OF SOLOLA + ++ adhe * + x t+4* , ‘ yh PANAJACHEL - GUATEMALA a a oe ae Ey Te Feer LECEND STREET, ROAD, PATH = =— — STREAMS, IRRIGATION DITCHES —— — Limits OF PORTION STUDIED +++ ------ LADINO HOUSEHOLD. oOo PANMACHELERIO INDIAN HOUSEHOLD TFOREIGN” INOIAN HOUSEHOLD e STORE oT PHARMACY: PH BUTCHER: BU 1 N.B NUMBERS BY HOUSEHOLDS INDICATE Ketulu ORDER OF WEALTH OF HOUSEHOLDS AS SHOWN IN LIST IN APPENDIA S. = Wine TINT attr <1 Tit! JORORWE! FANT LAN Map 3.—Panajachel: the area of the study (scale=1:3,192) 956746 O—S3 (Face p. 5) SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES I Nt 90848 OO1lb2C91L? 49 nhanth F1465.3.E2T23 1 Penny capitalism;