Santa Cruz was a node in the northern frontier economic network. The center was Santa Fé, where Pedro de Rivera Villalón noted in 1726, "all the commerce of New Mexico consists of goods brought in by the governor for his soldiers" and sold at inflated prices.
In 1728, Rivera set prices for military gear sold to soldiers, and was able to reduce their pay to 400 pesos a year. They still got a premium "because of the higher costs in getting what they need, given the distance." Men in presidios around Parral received 365 pesos.
Three officers were given 15 to 30 pesos more. There had many more with titles like "capitán de campaña, ayudante de la capitanía general, alféreces reales, and other titles never before used in that garrison." This particular form of what is now called "fraud, waste and abuse" of government money goes back as far as the term of Juan Flores Mogollón, as indicated by the roster for Juan Páez Hurtado’s expedition published on 16 August 2015.
There were 100 soldiers when he arrived, and 80 when he left. Rivera noted he "dismissed twenty men who, with the title reformados, were a waste of money." The appointment of an individual to two posts had been banned by the military code introduced in Habana in 1719. He believed such men forced the others to do their work, and the functional level at the presidio was 80.
These reformados were "the alcaldes mayores, who had the privilege of retirement and who received a fixed salary from the king." The conversion of these positions into tools of the governor probably occurred during the tenure of Antonio Valverde. That was when, according to the post for 18 June 2015, the identity of the alcaldes became obscure in the record.
The position remained, but it could no longer be filled by a man on active duty in the presidio.
The 100-man garrison served "more than 600 families." If the men were drawn evenly from the population, 15% of the families had some connections to the major employer. As it was, some families had several members in the military. Still, even with the reduced garrison, nearly 10% of the households had some direct income.
In Santa Cruz, Cristóbal Tafoya Altamirano had retired and his youngest brother still served.
Eighty men required at least 30 fanegas of corn a year. They also required meat, wheat, and other foodstuffs. Items like sugar were imported by the governor or merchants like Jean l’Archevêque before he died. The rest had to be purchased locally from farmers who produced more than they ate.
In 1718, Tafoya lived on a ranch with his wife, and two nearly adult men. In addition, he must have had captives to watch his livestock, work his fields, and prepare their food. They all might have required three fanegas of corn. If his married son’s family lived with him, they would have needed a fanega. His younger illegitimate daughter may have lived in the household, may have been part of the servants, or lived elsewhere with her mother. They too may have needed a fanega.
Tafoya didn’t raise corn in 1718, but had five fanegas planted in wheat and surplus livestock.
He apparently was shipping animals to Chihuahua or Parral. He owed a merchant in Chihuahua 25 pesos and was owed 10 pesos by a miner there. He also owed a few pesos to a man in Parral for which he had "agreed to pay with a little Indian girl."
The presidio provided escorts for pack trains to El Paso twice a year. There were yet no presidios between there and Parral. Military installations usually followed successful silver mines, and El Real de Minas de San Francisco de Cuéllar Real had only been founded in 1709 by Blas Cano de los Rios and Antonio Deza y Ulloa. It became the villa of San Felipe el Real de Chihuahua in 1718. It’s probably a coincidence that Tafoya’s mother’s name was Felipa Taguada de Ulloa.
In 1724, an attorney who had had close ties with Archevêque, Francisco de Casados, said "every year they go to the royal stores at Chihuahua to buy what they need in clothing and other things necessary for their maintenance." At the same hearing on trade, Páez said "the inhabitants of this kingdom go to the royal stores of Chihuahua and Parral to get the goods they need for their use."
The viceroy heard rumors that year the "Spaniards of this region have been buying from the French in the colony of Louisiana merchandise to the amount of twelve thousand pesos." The governor, Juan de Bustamante, couldn’t find evidence, but then he only asked men who had gone on expeditions with Antonio Valverde or Pedro Villasur, or who lived in Santa Fé.
He made his inquiry before Bourgmont made contact with the Apache. After that, more routes were open to bypass crown monopolies for nonedible goods like knives and kettles through trade on the frontier with non-pueblo bands.
Notes: The value of a fanega was mentioned in the post for 11 March 2015. Standardized spelling of Chihuahua from Chiguagua.
Casados, Francisco Lorenzo de. Declaration on trade with French, 21 April 1724, in Thomas.
Felipe V. Reglamento de Habana, 1719, in Naylor.
Naylor, Thomas H. and Charles W. Polzer. Pedro de Rivera and the Military Regulations for Northern New Spain, 1724-1729, 1988.
Páez, Juan Páez. Declaration on trade with French, 21 April 1724, in Thomas.
Rivera Villalón, Pedro de. Proyecto (inspection report), 1728, in Naylor.
Tafoya, Cristobal. Will, 1718, republished by Henrietta Martinez Christmas, "Cristobal Tafoya - 1718 Will," 1598 New Mexico website, 7 July 2014.
Thomas, Alfred B. After Coronado, 1935.
Showing posts with label 08 Santa Cruz 26-30. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 08 Santa Cruz 26-30. Show all posts
Sunday, January 03, 2016
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Santa Cruz Families
Families were the only dependable social unit that existed in Santa Cruz. That wasn’t simply a matter of religious mores, but an economic necessity. When there were no stores or restaurants in an agricultural community with little surplus to trade, eating required a man raise crops and a woman grind corn or oversee its preparation.
Young men in Santa Cruz could marry at any age, but when a woman’s parents were alive and known, she usually married between the ages of 16 and 20.
It’s impossible to know life expectancies for such a small population, but marriage records suggest women died in childbirth leaving young husbands behind. If there were young children, the widower needed to remarry quickly. Marcos Martín was 18 when he remarried in 1723, Juan Trujillo was 20 in 1715, and Joaquín de Anaya 22 in 1719.
The age of pre-nuptial witnesses shown in the table in the last post suggests that by 1720, most men in Santa Cruz could expect to live to age 40. After that, half could live to be 60. If a man died in his early forties, there was a good chance he left young children. Adolescent boys could and did marry.
A man’s widow and young daughters faced greater perils. Marriage records indicate few widows remarried. This wasn’t true just in the north, but was also the case in México. Philip Russel thought inheritance laws that dictated a woman retained her dowry and received half the property the family accumulated during the marriage provided them with some freedom. Robert McCaa noted the failure of widows to remarry acted as a counterpoise to high fertility rates.
The major difference between México and the north was there were few urban amenities in Santa Fé and none in Santa Cruz. Mores established in the one may not have served women as well when they were perpetuated on the frontier. If a widow had children who could grow crops, she could survive. If not, locating food would have been a difficulty if she did not have relatives to help.
A widow’s alternative to living with a grown child was to become a servant. However, that could have stimulated gossip about herself or her daughters. The solution was much older men married the young daughters. That gave the girls some sort of dowry when their husbands died and probably provided a home or security for their mothers.
Providing respectability for young orphans was a luxury few men could afford. In 1718, forty-five-year-old Bernardo Fernández married 16-year-old Antonia Martín. In 1725, eighty-year-old Antonio Martín married fourteen-year-old Gertrudis Fresqui. In 1726, forty-seven-year-old Marcos Montoya wed fourteen-year-old María Rosa Baca. Not only were all their fathers dead, but the new husbands may have known the fathers. Such marriages may have been the best way for them to look after the families of deceased friends.
The same device sometimes was used to look after girls with unknown parents. It certainly provided better security than that given to the orphaned María de Mascareñas in the household of Jean l’Archevêque. In 1725, sixty-five-year-old Domingo Martín Serrano married twelve-year-old Juana Bautista de Olivas. A few years later, in 1728, forty-year-old Cristóbal Martín wed fifteen-year-old Juliana Maese.
If, in fact, marriage was used as a way to introduce servants into a household without arousing suspicion, then some of the other marriages of very young orphans may have had such an origin. For example, in 1727 fourteen-year-old Domingo Matías Cruz, whose mother had died, married fourteen-year-old Margarita Domínguez, whose parents were unknown. Similarly, sixteen-year-old Isidro Trujillo, whose mother had died, married fourteen-year-old Francisca Xaviera Torres in 1727.
It may now seem an extreme way to channel the sexual behavior of young servants, but the marriage prospects of young girls with unknown parents were more dire.
Notes: María de Mascareñas was mentioned in the post for 14 October 2015. She was the daughter of José Mascareñas and María de Acosta. Her father’s first wife had been María de García García. There might have been a connection dating back to Archevêque’s first wife, who stayed with Miguel García de la Riva and Manuela Velasco, after her first husband was killed. The woman who cared for Archevêque’s children when he was a widow was Francisca de Velasco. She had come north as a widow with her nephew, Miguel García Velasco, and Manuela.
Chávez believed Bernardo or Bernardino Fernández was the same man as Martín Fernández mentioned in the post for 2 April 2015.
Chávez, Angélico. New Mexico Roots, Ltd, 1982.
_____. Origins of New Mexico Families, 1992 revised edition.
Kessell, John L., Rick Hendricks, and Meredith Dodge. To the Royal Crown Restored, 1995; background on Mascareñas.
McCaa, Robert. "The Peopling of Mexico from Origins to Revolution," in Richard Steckel and Michael Haines, The Population History of North America, 2000.
Russell, Philip. The History of Mexico, 2010.
Young men in Santa Cruz could marry at any age, but when a woman’s parents were alive and known, she usually married between the ages of 16 and 20.
It’s impossible to know life expectancies for such a small population, but marriage records suggest women died in childbirth leaving young husbands behind. If there were young children, the widower needed to remarry quickly. Marcos Martín was 18 when he remarried in 1723, Juan Trujillo was 20 in 1715, and Joaquín de Anaya 22 in 1719.
The age of pre-nuptial witnesses shown in the table in the last post suggests that by 1720, most men in Santa Cruz could expect to live to age 40. After that, half could live to be 60. If a man died in his early forties, there was a good chance he left young children. Adolescent boys could and did marry.
A man’s widow and young daughters faced greater perils. Marriage records indicate few widows remarried. This wasn’t true just in the north, but was also the case in México. Philip Russel thought inheritance laws that dictated a woman retained her dowry and received half the property the family accumulated during the marriage provided them with some freedom. Robert McCaa noted the failure of widows to remarry acted as a counterpoise to high fertility rates.
| Year | Widower | Widow |
| 1714 | 2 | |
| 1715 | 2 | 1 |
| 1716 | 2 | |
| 1717 | ||
| 1718 | 1 | 1 |
| 1719 | 2 | 2 |
| 1723 | 1 | |
| 1724 | ||
| 1725 | 2 | 1 |
| Remarriages |
The major difference between México and the north was there were few urban amenities in Santa Fé and none in Santa Cruz. Mores established in the one may not have served women as well when they were perpetuated on the frontier. If a widow had children who could grow crops, she could survive. If not, locating food would have been a difficulty if she did not have relatives to help.
A widow’s alternative to living with a grown child was to become a servant. However, that could have stimulated gossip about herself or her daughters. The solution was much older men married the young daughters. That gave the girls some sort of dowry when their husbands died and probably provided a home or security for their mothers.
Providing respectability for young orphans was a luxury few men could afford. In 1718, forty-five-year-old Bernardo Fernández married 16-year-old Antonia Martín. In 1725, eighty-year-old Antonio Martín married fourteen-year-old Gertrudis Fresqui. In 1726, forty-seven-year-old Marcos Montoya wed fourteen-year-old María Rosa Baca. Not only were all their fathers dead, but the new husbands may have known the fathers. Such marriages may have been the best way for them to look after the families of deceased friends.
The same device sometimes was used to look after girls with unknown parents. It certainly provided better security than that given to the orphaned María de Mascareñas in the household of Jean l’Archevêque. In 1725, sixty-five-year-old Domingo Martín Serrano married twelve-year-old Juana Bautista de Olivas. A few years later, in 1728, forty-year-old Cristóbal Martín wed fifteen-year-old Juliana Maese.
If, in fact, marriage was used as a way to introduce servants into a household without arousing suspicion, then some of the other marriages of very young orphans may have had such an origin. For example, in 1727 fourteen-year-old Domingo Matías Cruz, whose mother had died, married fourteen-year-old Margarita Domínguez, whose parents were unknown. Similarly, sixteen-year-old Isidro Trujillo, whose mother had died, married fourteen-year-old Francisca Xaviera Torres in 1727.
It may now seem an extreme way to channel the sexual behavior of young servants, but the marriage prospects of young girls with unknown parents were more dire.
| Age | Groom | Bride | Groom an Orphan/ Unknown | Bride an Orphan/ Unknown | Orphan Bride to Widow |
| 12 | 1 | ||||
| 13 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 14 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |
| 15 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |
| 16 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 17 | 1 | 2 | 2 | ||
| 18 | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||
| 19 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |
| 20 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| 21 | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||
| 22 | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| 23 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 24 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 25 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 26 | 1 | ||||
| 27 | 2 | ||||
| 28 | 1 | ||||
| 30 | 3 | ||||
| 34 | 1 | ||||
| 36 | 1 | ||||
| Age First Marriage | |||||
Notes: María de Mascareñas was mentioned in the post for 14 October 2015. She was the daughter of José Mascareñas and María de Acosta. Her father’s first wife had been María de García García. There might have been a connection dating back to Archevêque’s first wife, who stayed with Miguel García de la Riva and Manuela Velasco, after her first husband was killed. The woman who cared for Archevêque’s children when he was a widow was Francisca de Velasco. She had come north as a widow with her nephew, Miguel García Velasco, and Manuela.
Chávez believed Bernardo or Bernardino Fernández was the same man as Martín Fernández mentioned in the post for 2 April 2015.
Chávez, Angélico. New Mexico Roots, Ltd, 1982.
_____. Origins of New Mexico Families, 1992 revised edition.
Kessell, John L., Rick Hendricks, and Meredith Dodge. To the Royal Crown Restored, 1995; background on Mascareñas.
McCaa, Robert. "The Peopling of Mexico from Origins to Revolution," in Richard Steckel and Michael Haines, The Population History of North America, 2000.
Russell, Philip. The History of Mexico, 2010.
Sunday, November 08, 2015
Santa Cruz Leaders
The population in the Santa Cruz valley was more diverse than the one in Chimayó. Marriages hadn’t yet bridged cultural differences between La Cañada, the Río Abajo, Ciudad de México, and the mining towns, but men were cooperating to create a more unified society.
Witness lists from the diligencias matrimoniales indicate that more than two-thirds of the weddings between 1714 and 1730 were approved by men from both La Cañada and elsewhere, even when the bride and groom were from the same group.
More important, a pool of men was called year after year. That could mean the friars were more comfortable with some men than others. However, with frequent ecclesiastical turnovers, the reappearance of some men more likely suggests they were the agreed upon community leaders.
The group represented the entire male population, with more in their twenties and thirties when they first appeared. However, while men in their thirties were most often to be called, the ones called for five or more years were likely to come from families in Nuevo México before the Revolt: José de Madrid, Antonio Bernal and Tomás Núñez de Haro were each called in seven years.
Madrid was the son of Roque and his first wife, Juana de Arvid López. Neither Bernal’s parents nor those of his wife, Rosa María Romero de Prazda, are known. Francisco Romero de Prazda was tentiente alcade at Santa Domingo in 1664. He had a dependent named María living with him in 1693 at El Paso.
Núñez was born in Zacatecas, but apparently moved north before the Revolt, perhaps when Diego de Peñalosa was governor in the 1660s. He married Juana Durán, whose father Nicolás was an aide to Peñalosa. Her paternal grandmother was Catalina Bernal. His current wife was the niece of Juana, another Juana Durán. This was the daughter of the first Juana’s brother, Salvador Durán, and Ana Márquez.
Núñez was the only one known to be close to the Franciscans. He supported them in 1730 when the Bishop of Durango was making inquiries, and was a member of the Conquistadora Confraternity.
The man who testified for six years, Sebastían Durán, was the son of Fernando Durán y Chaves and Elena Ruiz Cáceres. His family was originally from the Río Abajo, but they were living in Taos in 1680. Elena was descended from Juan Ruiz Cáceres whose daughter married the father of Roque de Madrid. Roque himself married Salvador’s daughter, Josefa Durán, in 1715, when he had been a widower for more than a year. They had been accused of adultery in 1700.
Domingo Martín was the oldest of the frequently called witnesses. His father Domingo was apparently the oldest son of Luis Martín Serrano. When Luis’s property was divided, his son Domingo may have received the best share, or bought out his brothers Antonio and Francisco who moved to Chimayó.
The other two men called for five years were new colonists. Roque Jaramillo was eleven-years-old when his brick-mason father decided to leave Mexico City. José de Atienza Sevillano also came from an urban, skilled-trades family: his father made paving stones, his brother Juan was a weaver.
Most of the remaining men who were called in two, three or four years were equally from La Cañada, Mexico City or the mining towns. The exception were the soldiers who were present between 1715 and 1719, and again in the late 1720s.
Notes: First appearance means within this time period; the older men no doubt began being called when they were younger.
Roque’s brother Lorenzo was accused of illicit relations with Juana Domínguez in 1697. They later married. Salvador’s daughter, Josefa Durán, used the name Luján when she was married to Augustín Griego. Both accusations of infidelity occurred when Diego de Vargas was under attack by Pedro Cubero. Lorenzo’s name appears as maestro de campo in Santa Fé.
For more on the Bishop of Durango, see the post for 28 June 2015.
Chávez, Angélico. New Mexico Roots, Ltd, 1982.
_____. Origins of New Mexico Families, 1992 revised edition.
Kessell, John L., Rick Hendricks, and Meredith Dodge. To the Royal Crown Restored, 1995.
Witness lists from the diligencias matrimoniales indicate that more than two-thirds of the weddings between 1714 and 1730 were approved by men from both La Cañada and elsewhere, even when the bride and groom were from the same group.
| Year | Both Local | Man Local | Woman Local | Both Not Local | Total |
| 1714 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 | |
| 1715 | 2 | 1 | 3 | ||
| 1716 | 3 | 1 | 4 | ||
| 1717 | 2 | 2 | |||
| 1718 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6 | |
| 1719 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 6 | |
| 1720 | 1 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 1721 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 1722 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1723 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 7 | |
| 1724 | |||||
| 1725 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1726 | 3 | 3 | |||
| 1727 | 2 | 5 | 7 | ||
| 1728 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1729 | |||||
| 1730 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 1731 | |||||
| 1732 | |||||
| 9 | 9 | 12 | 26 | 56 |
More important, a pool of men was called year after year. That could mean the friars were more comfortable with some men than others. However, with frequent ecclesiastical turnovers, the reappearance of some men more likely suggests they were the agreed upon community leaders.
The group represented the entire male population, with more in their twenties and thirties when they first appeared. However, while men in their thirties were most often to be called, the ones called for five or more years were likely to come from families in Nuevo México before the Revolt: José de Madrid, Antonio Bernal and Tomás Núñez de Haro were each called in seven years.
| Age | 5+ | 2-4 |
| 20s | 9 | |
| 30s | 4 | 9 |
| 40s | 1 | 6 |
| 50s | 2 | 5 |
| 60s | 1 | |
| 70s | 1 | |
| Number of Years Called to Witness by Age When First Called | ||
Madrid was the son of Roque and his first wife, Juana de Arvid López. Neither Bernal’s parents nor those of his wife, Rosa María Romero de Prazda, are known. Francisco Romero de Prazda was tentiente alcade at Santa Domingo in 1664. He had a dependent named María living with him in 1693 at El Paso.
Núñez was born in Zacatecas, but apparently moved north before the Revolt, perhaps when Diego de Peñalosa was governor in the 1660s. He married Juana Durán, whose father Nicolás was an aide to Peñalosa. Her paternal grandmother was Catalina Bernal. His current wife was the niece of Juana, another Juana Durán. This was the daughter of the first Juana’s brother, Salvador Durán, and Ana Márquez.
Núñez was the only one known to be close to the Franciscans. He supported them in 1730 when the Bishop of Durango was making inquiries, and was a member of the Conquistadora Confraternity.
The man who testified for six years, Sebastían Durán, was the son of Fernando Durán y Chaves and Elena Ruiz Cáceres. His family was originally from the Río Abajo, but they were living in Taos in 1680. Elena was descended from Juan Ruiz Cáceres whose daughter married the father of Roque de Madrid. Roque himself married Salvador’s daughter, Josefa Durán, in 1715, when he had been a widower for more than a year. They had been accused of adultery in 1700.
Domingo Martín was the oldest of the frequently called witnesses. His father Domingo was apparently the oldest son of Luis Martín Serrano. When Luis’s property was divided, his son Domingo may have received the best share, or bought out his brothers Antonio and Francisco who moved to Chimayó.
The other two men called for five years were new colonists. Roque Jaramillo was eleven-years-old when his brick-mason father decided to leave Mexico City. José de Atienza Sevillano also came from an urban, skilled-trades family: his father made paving stones, his brother Juan was a weaver.
Most of the remaining men who were called in two, three or four years were equally from La Cañada, Mexico City or the mining towns. The exception were the soldiers who were present between 1715 and 1719, and again in the late 1720s.
| First Appearance | ||||
| Years | Name | From | Year | Age |
| 7 | Antonio Bernal | Local | 1718 | 30 |
| 7 | José de Madrid | Local | 1718 | 40 |
| 7 | Tomás Núñez de Haro | Zacatecas | 1714 | 52 |
| 6 | Sebastían Durán | Local | 1714 | 38 |
| 5 | Domingo Martín | Local | 1714 | 56 |
| 5 | Joque Jaramillo | Mexico City | 1720 | 35 |
| 5 | José de Atienza | Mexico City | 1714 | 36 |
| 4 | Juan Alonso Mondragón | Local | 1718 | 40 |
| 4 | Lucas Flores | Parras | 1714 | 50 |
| 3 | Francisco Xavier Romero | Mexico City | 1714 | 56 |
| 3 | Juan Alonso | Local | 1719 | 38 |
| 3 | Juan de Atienza | Puebla | 1714 | 46 |
| 3 | Juan Martín | Local | 1717 | 23 |
| 3 | Mateo Trujillo | Soldier | 1723 | 48 |
| 3 | Pedro Sánchez | Río Abajo | 1725 | 22 |
| 2 | Antonio de Herrera | Salvatierra | 1714 | 30 |
| 2 | Cayatano de Atienza | Mexico City | 1725 | 34 |
| 2 | Cristóbal Tafoya | Tlalpujahua | 1720 | 40 |
| 2 | Diego Martín | Local | 1716 | 45 |
| 2 | Domingo Montes Vigil | Zacatecas | 1719 | 25 |
| 2 | Francisco Alberto de la Mora | Zamora | 1716 | 56 |
| 2 | Isidro de Medina | Durango | 1720 | 28 |
| 2 | Juan de Sandoval Martínez | Mexico City | 1722 | 63 |
| 2 | Lázaro de Córdova | Mexico City | 1714 | 24 |
| 2 | Luís de Archuleta | Local | 1720 | 20 |
| 2 | Roque de Madrid | Local | 1716 | 70 |
| 2 | Miguel Martín | Local | 1714 | 30 |
| 2 | Nicolás Sisneros | Local | 1714 | 24 |
| 2 | Ramon Medina | Soldier | 1719 | 28 |
| 2 | Santiago Romero | Mexico City | 1719 | 26 |
| 2 | Ventura Esquibel | Soldier | 1718 | 33 |
| Santa Cruz Witnesses for Diligencias Matrimoniales between 1714 and 1730 | ||||
Notes: First appearance means within this time period; the older men no doubt began being called when they were younger.
Roque’s brother Lorenzo was accused of illicit relations with Juana Domínguez in 1697. They later married. Salvador’s daughter, Josefa Durán, used the name Luján when she was married to Augustín Griego. Both accusations of infidelity occurred when Diego de Vargas was under attack by Pedro Cubero. Lorenzo’s name appears as maestro de campo in Santa Fé.
For more on the Bishop of Durango, see the post for 28 June 2015.
Chávez, Angélico. New Mexico Roots, Ltd, 1982.
_____. Origins of New Mexico Families, 1992 revised edition.
Kessell, John L., Rick Hendricks, and Meredith Dodge. To the Royal Crown Restored, 1995.
Wednesday, November 04, 2015
Chimayó Families
All the people living in Chimayó before 1712 had family connections from La Cañada before the Revolt. Luis Martín Serrano II was married to Melchora de los Reyes. His children by another wife, Antonia de Miranda, included Antonio and Francisco. The second was married to Juana García de los Reyes. Luis’s brother Pedro’s daughter Juana was married to Felipe de Arratia. Luis’ first cousin, Cristóbal, was the father of Felipe Moraga.
Of the other settlers, Diego González was the son of Melchora González Bernal. Luis López was married to Ana María de la Concepción Bernal. His mother was Ana Luján. Matías Luján was married to Francisca Romero. Angélico Chávez thought Matías the likely son of Juan Luján. He didn’t mention Ana.
Those who weren’t members of the original La Cañada community were soon absorbed by marriage. Antonio’s first wife was Ynez de Ledesma. His second was María Cortés of Mexico City. In 1725, he married Gertrudis Fresqui, the granddaughter of Ambrosia Fresqui.
Ana María Herrera, the niece of Tomas de Herrera y Sandoval, married Luis’ grandson, Antonio. He was the child of Diego and Josefa de Torres.
After 1712, most of the new names that appear in Chimayó were through marriages. That year Mateo de Ortega, the husband of Antonia Martín conveyed, land to Manuel Martín. In 1718, Antonia’s second husband Bernardo Fernández was living there. Diego Durán, the husband of Pascuala Martín, witnessed a wedding in 1720.
Marriages of the younger generation of Martíns generally were with children of new immigrants. Cristóbal’s son Diego married Manuela de Vargas in 1714, his daughter Catarina married Isidro Medina in 1717, and his son Juan Luis married Isidro’s sister Antonia in 1719. Manuela’s father, Manuel Fernandéz de Vargas, was a tailor from Guadalajara. Isidro’s father was a capitán in the militia from Durango.
Antonio Martín’s stepdaughter, Ines Cortes, married Francisco Jurado in 1718. His family came from Sombrerete. The exception to this preference for exogamy was Antonio’s son by María Cortes. Juan Antonio, married Feliciana Monroy in 1725. Her parents were Juan Alonso de Mondragón and Sebastiana Trujillo. Her grandmother was María Bernal.
Within the extended families, authority apparently flowed from father to son. When disputes arose between brothers whose fathers were long dead, harmony was maintained by asking a neutral third party to arbitrate.
For instance, when Diego González filed a complaint against Pedro’s daughter’s husband, Felipe de Arratia, in 1703, the family of Pedro’s brother testified against him. Witnesses included Luis and his sons Domingo and Antonio.
Similarly, Luis López requested arbitration against Melchora de los Reyes in 1712. She was married to Luis Martín. His wife was the close friend of Pedro’s daughter-in-law, Leonor Domínguez.
In 1717, Cristóbal, the son of Hernán, and Francisco, the son of Luis’ son Pedro also used a third party.
In addition, the family employed diligencias matrimoniales to voice concerns when lines of authority weren’t clear. When Diego’s son Antonio proposed marrying Gertrudis Sánchez in 1717, Francisco, his son Juan, and another cousin Diego, all said they had had relations with her. When Isidro Medina’s sister was going to marry Diego Romero, Miguel Martín was one of the witnesses who said Romero had already proposed to another woman. The marriage proceeded when Romero claimed the woman involved was already pregnant by another man.
As mentioned in the post for 29 March 2015 on the dispute between Leonor Domínguez and her husband, the purpose of judicial investigations wasn’t to place blame. Instead, it was to determine the community’s will and enforce it. The first two complaints were like class action suits brought by groups who were harmed by someone closing a road. To maintain family and community harmony, the person filing the complaint was not a member of the accused’s family, but the witnesses and beneficiaries were.
Notes: Chávez didn’t mention Melchora in Families, but she was named as the mother of Diego Martín, son of Luis, in 1717 in Roots. Chávez believed Bernardo or Bernardino Fernández was the same man as Martín Fernández mentioned in the post for 2 April 2015.
Chávez, Angélico. New Mexico Roots, Ltd, 1982.
_____. Origins of New Mexico Families, 1992 revised edition.
Cutter, Charles R. The Legal Culture of Northern New Spain, 1700-1810, 1995. He has more on the functions of the judicial system as an enforced of community mores.
Of the other settlers, Diego González was the son of Melchora González Bernal. Luis López was married to Ana María de la Concepción Bernal. His mother was Ana Luján. Matías Luján was married to Francisca Romero. Angélico Chávez thought Matías the likely son of Juan Luján. He didn’t mention Ana.
Those who weren’t members of the original La Cañada community were soon absorbed by marriage. Antonio’s first wife was Ynez de Ledesma. His second was María Cortés of Mexico City. In 1725, he married Gertrudis Fresqui, the granddaughter of Ambrosia Fresqui.
Ana María Herrera, the niece of Tomas de Herrera y Sandoval, married Luis’ grandson, Antonio. He was the child of Diego and Josefa de Torres.
After 1712, most of the new names that appear in Chimayó were through marriages. That year Mateo de Ortega, the husband of Antonia Martín conveyed, land to Manuel Martín. In 1718, Antonia’s second husband Bernardo Fernández was living there. Diego Durán, the husband of Pascuala Martín, witnessed a wedding in 1720.
Marriages of the younger generation of Martíns generally were with children of new immigrants. Cristóbal’s son Diego married Manuela de Vargas in 1714, his daughter Catarina married Isidro Medina in 1717, and his son Juan Luis married Isidro’s sister Antonia in 1719. Manuela’s father, Manuel Fernandéz de Vargas, was a tailor from Guadalajara. Isidro’s father was a capitán in the militia from Durango.
Antonio Martín’s stepdaughter, Ines Cortes, married Francisco Jurado in 1718. His family came from Sombrerete. The exception to this preference for exogamy was Antonio’s son by María Cortes. Juan Antonio, married Feliciana Monroy in 1725. Her parents were Juan Alonso de Mondragón and Sebastiana Trujillo. Her grandmother was María Bernal.
Within the extended families, authority apparently flowed from father to son. When disputes arose between brothers whose fathers were long dead, harmony was maintained by asking a neutral third party to arbitrate.
For instance, when Diego González filed a complaint against Pedro’s daughter’s husband, Felipe de Arratia, in 1703, the family of Pedro’s brother testified against him. Witnesses included Luis and his sons Domingo and Antonio.
Similarly, Luis López requested arbitration against Melchora de los Reyes in 1712. She was married to Luis Martín. His wife was the close friend of Pedro’s daughter-in-law, Leonor Domínguez.
In 1717, Cristóbal, the son of Hernán, and Francisco, the son of Luis’ son Pedro also used a third party.
In addition, the family employed diligencias matrimoniales to voice concerns when lines of authority weren’t clear. When Diego’s son Antonio proposed marrying Gertrudis Sánchez in 1717, Francisco, his son Juan, and another cousin Diego, all said they had had relations with her. When Isidro Medina’s sister was going to marry Diego Romero, Miguel Martín was one of the witnesses who said Romero had already proposed to another woman. The marriage proceeded when Romero claimed the woman involved was already pregnant by another man.
As mentioned in the post for 29 March 2015 on the dispute between Leonor Domínguez and her husband, the purpose of judicial investigations wasn’t to place blame. Instead, it was to determine the community’s will and enforce it. The first two complaints were like class action suits brought by groups who were harmed by someone closing a road. To maintain family and community harmony, the person filing the complaint was not a member of the accused’s family, but the witnesses and beneficiaries were.
Notes: Chávez didn’t mention Melchora in Families, but she was named as the mother of Diego Martín, son of Luis, in 1717 in Roots. Chávez believed Bernardo or Bernardino Fernández was the same man as Martín Fernández mentioned in the post for 2 April 2015.
Chávez, Angélico. New Mexico Roots, Ltd, 1982.
_____. Origins of New Mexico Families, 1992 revised edition.
Cutter, Charles R. The Legal Culture of Northern New Spain, 1700-1810, 1995. He has more on the functions of the judicial system as an enforced of community mores.
Sunday, November 01, 2015
Chimayó
Chimayó lies on a plain at the foot of the Sangre de Cristo mountains, with steep badlands on three sides. It was reached by following what today is called the Santa Cruz river as it meanders down ten miles and 500' from the east and north.
When Diego de Vargas created the villa of Santa Cruz in 1695, he defined the eastern boundary as "those which extend from" San Juan pueblo past "the farms of Captains Luis Martín and Juan Ruis, in front of and at the place and tract of land called Chimayó."
At the time, the name Chimayó was used for the river, the plain, and everything between. In 1695, Tomas de Herrera y Sandoval requested half a fanega of land "near Chimayó" and in 1702 Diego González bought land "near Chimayó."
The next year, Felipe de Arratia plowed land "in the Cañada de Chimayó." Diego González and Ambrosio Fresqui filed a complaint with the Santa Cruz alcalde that he had taken part of the road used by oxen to bring vigas down to the valley. They said the road "was already in use and a custom" from the "beginning of the kingdom, before the first uprising."
It’s clear González and Fresqui were upstream. It’s also clear men were intent of exploiting Pedro Cubero’s relaxation of martial law to reclaim land in the high valley before it was taken by outsiders. Herrera had come in 1695 from Valladolid. Fresqui’s Flemish ancestor, Juan Fresco, had come from Mexico City in 1617 to prospect for minerals. His descendants had settled in the Río Abajo.
González and Fresqui filed their complaint on March 14. Two weeks later, on March 27, Francisco Martín claimed "uncultivated and wild land" next to land already granted to Felipe Moraga. Witnesses against Arratia included two men who gave Chimayó as their residence, Matías Luján and Antonio Martín.
Three years later Luis López requested land that "has never been cultivated" in the Cañada de Chimayó with the ditch dug after the Pueblo Revolt by San Cristóbal. It was separated on they west by an arroyo from Martín’s land. The road to Taos through the Arroyo de la Cañada Ancha ran on the north side.
Chimayó was desirable because it was relatively protected by topography from attack, had a permanent source of water, and the necessary resources to sustain life. Río Medio comes from Trailrider’s Wall and Río Frijoles comes from the Picuris-Pecos Fault to merge to the southeast. They’re joined at the eastern edge of the settled area by the Río Quemado, the only river that flowed all year. In addition to mountain snow from its origin near the Truchas peaks, it was fed by springs.
Almost as important, the north tilting plain was surrounded by woodlands that provided fuel for cooking and keeping warm. Probably most was one-seeded juniper, but Don Usner says you can still find old piñon stumps on the "summit of Tsi Mayoh and on the steepest ridges of the badlands" that were cut by axe.
The growing season is more variable there than in the valley, but they could grow corn and wheat. Communal grazing land lay east of López’s land. In 1712 he complained Melchora de los Reyes was preventing his animals from getting through. She had been granted land next to his in 1711.
Notes: The consequences of Cubero’s settlement politics were discussed in the post for 11 March 2015. Herrera’s son Antonio died in the Villasur massacre.
Chávez, Angélico. New Mexico Roots, Ltd, 1982.
_____. Origins of New Mexico Families, 1992 revised edition.
Twitchell, Ralph Emerson. Spanish Archives of New Mexico: Compiled and Chronologically Arranged, two volumes, 1914.
Usner, Don J. Sabino’s Map, 1995; he mentions corn and wheat being grown in the twentieth century.
Vargas, Diego de. Villa Nueva de Santa Cruz, 18 March 1695, in Twitchell, volume 1.
Maps: United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey maps.
1. "Chimayo Quadrangle, New Mexico, 7.5 minute series (topographic)," 1953.
2. More readable detail of #1.
3. "Cundiyo Quadrangle, New Mexico-Santa Fe County, 7.5 minute series (topographic)," 1953.
When Diego de Vargas created the villa of Santa Cruz in 1695, he defined the eastern boundary as "those which extend from" San Juan pueblo past "the farms of Captains Luis Martín and Juan Ruis, in front of and at the place and tract of land called Chimayó."
At the time, the name Chimayó was used for the river, the plain, and everything between. In 1695, Tomas de Herrera y Sandoval requested half a fanega of land "near Chimayó" and in 1702 Diego González bought land "near Chimayó."
The next year, Felipe de Arratia plowed land "in the Cañada de Chimayó." Diego González and Ambrosio Fresqui filed a complaint with the Santa Cruz alcalde that he had taken part of the road used by oxen to bring vigas down to the valley. They said the road "was already in use and a custom" from the "beginning of the kingdom, before the first uprising."
It’s clear González and Fresqui were upstream. It’s also clear men were intent of exploiting Pedro Cubero’s relaxation of martial law to reclaim land in the high valley before it was taken by outsiders. Herrera had come in 1695 from Valladolid. Fresqui’s Flemish ancestor, Juan Fresco, had come from Mexico City in 1617 to prospect for minerals. His descendants had settled in the Río Abajo.
González and Fresqui filed their complaint on March 14. Two weeks later, on March 27, Francisco Martín claimed "uncultivated and wild land" next to land already granted to Felipe Moraga. Witnesses against Arratia included two men who gave Chimayó as their residence, Matías Luján and Antonio Martín.
Three years later Luis López requested land that "has never been cultivated" in the Cañada de Chimayó with the ditch dug after the Pueblo Revolt by San Cristóbal. It was separated on they west by an arroyo from Martín’s land. The road to Taos through the Arroyo de la Cañada Ancha ran on the north side.
Chimayó was desirable because it was relatively protected by topography from attack, had a permanent source of water, and the necessary resources to sustain life. Río Medio comes from Trailrider’s Wall and Río Frijoles comes from the Picuris-Pecos Fault to merge to the southeast. They’re joined at the eastern edge of the settled area by the Río Quemado, the only river that flowed all year. In addition to mountain snow from its origin near the Truchas peaks, it was fed by springs.
Almost as important, the north tilting plain was surrounded by woodlands that provided fuel for cooking and keeping warm. Probably most was one-seeded juniper, but Don Usner says you can still find old piñon stumps on the "summit of Tsi Mayoh and on the steepest ridges of the badlands" that were cut by axe.
The growing season is more variable there than in the valley, but they could grow corn and wheat. Communal grazing land lay east of López’s land. In 1712 he complained Melchora de los Reyes was preventing his animals from getting through. She had been granted land next to his in 1711.
Notes: The consequences of Cubero’s settlement politics were discussed in the post for 11 March 2015. Herrera’s son Antonio died in the Villasur massacre.
Chávez, Angélico. New Mexico Roots, Ltd, 1982.
_____. Origins of New Mexico Families, 1992 revised edition.
Twitchell, Ralph Emerson. Spanish Archives of New Mexico: Compiled and Chronologically Arranged, two volumes, 1914.
Usner, Don J. Sabino’s Map, 1995; he mentions corn and wheat being grown in the twentieth century.
Vargas, Diego de. Villa Nueva de Santa Cruz, 18 March 1695, in Twitchell, volume 1.
Maps: United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey maps.
1. "Chimayo Quadrangle, New Mexico, 7.5 minute series (topographic)," 1953.
2. More readable detail of #1.
3. "Cundiyo Quadrangle, New Mexico-Santa Fe County, 7.5 minute series (topographic)," 1953.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)