“You, daughter, I must force you”: Resisting Depósito, Repartimiento de Mercancías, and Sexual

Exploitation in Nueva Galicia, New Spain, 1608-1617

Bret Blosser

In April of 1617, in the northern reaches of New Spain,an Indian woman identified as Maria Ana appeared before General Francisco de Urdiñola to accuse Capitán Protector Alonso Pulido de Toro of sexual predation. Maria Ana and her husband, Francisco Juan, had immigrated to the frontier district of Fronteras de Colotlán from Michoacán, a place oforigin suggesting Purépecha ethnicity (Gerhard 1972:343). General Urdiñola was the ranking Crown military and government officer of the Province of Nueva Galicia. Capitán Protector Pulido was the Spanish governor of Fronteras de Colotlán, a special military district located southwest of the silver mines of Zacatecas, Nueva Galicia.1 Viceroy Luis de Velasco (the younger) had created Fronteras de Colotlán in the last years of the sixteenth century as part of his program to end the interminable hostilities of the Chichimeco War2 by decommissioning the presidio (garrisoned fort) system and offering land rights, military protection, and other benefits to “peaceful” Indian groups who agreed to adopt congregación (aggregated settlement), cabildo (municipal government), Christianity, and other aspects of Spain’s colonial program. The Capitán Protector of Fronteras de Colotlán, lacking a garrison of Spanish soldiers, relied upon troops supplied by Indian pueblos, 1 The Colonial-period jurisdiction of Fronteras de Colotlán comprised portions of the modern Mexican states of Nayarit, Jalisco, Durango, and Zacatecas.2 Tepehuans, Zacatecos, Guachichils, and other indigenous groups locatedin the northern reaches of the colony began attacking Spanish silver-mining operations and supply lines in the Zacatecas district of Nueva Galicia around 1550. Spaniards adopted the Nahuatl term “Chichimeco” for northern Indian groups perceived to lack a civil, aggregated settlement pattern. For four decades the Crown waged the “Chichimeco War” against these thinly dispersed “Chichimecos” on the north-central plateau and in the Sierra Madre Occidental (Gerhard 1993:6-7; Powell 1975).

known as flecheros, for occasional military campaigns on New Spain’s northern frontier (Blosser, n.d.; Gerhard 1993:75; Powell 1977:106-123). The district’s twenty-five pueblos (corporate, territorial Indian communities) were situated ina lowland zone of broad valleys and gentle hills and a highland zone of tall mesas and precipitous canyons, the Sierra de Tepeque. Indigenous Indian groups included Zacatecos, Guachichils, Cazcáns, Tepehuans, and Huichols. Acontingent of Tlaxcaltecos—a Nahuatl-speaking Indian group from central New Spain, long allied with the Spanish Crown—established a colony in the head town of San Luis de Colotlán in 1591, one of several Tlaxcalteco colonies founded for the purpose of instructing “Chichimeco” Indians in such “civilized” practices as congregated settlement, irrigation agriculture, and Christianity (Gerhard 1972:72-78; Sego 1998:129-156).

Maria Ana dictated her denunciation to Colotlán’s Tlaxcalteco scribe, Baltasar de Ordaz, who inscribed her petition in Nahuatl. The document was presented to General Urdiñola during a four-day meeting with district leaders in Colotlán. In this statement Maria Ana portrayed herself as a vulnerable and threatened subject who humbly requested theGeneral’s protection from a rapacious Crown official. Her plea is credible, but review of the circumstances surrounding the meeting suggests that she constructed the denunciation to serve the strategic purposes of a plan developed by representatives of several pueblos to rid the district of Capitán Protector Pulido. Pueblo leaders, all Indian men, produced and presented five petitions in which they detailed a range of economic abuses perpetrated by the Capitán Protector. Maria Ana complemented those charges by characterizing Pulido as a sexual predator. She extended the leaders’ critique by attacking the moral authority of Colotlán’s two Franciscan priests and testifying against thecorrupt use of depósito, a judicial instrument for the protective custody of Indian women and children. Her deposition against Pulido was explicit, but her testimony against the priests and depósito was conveyed by means of incidental details and quoted speech woven into her account

2

of Pulido’s abuses. She apparently employed this indirect rhetoric to reduce her exposure as the author of attacks against Spanish officials. The records of two official visits to the region during the previous decade suggest thatthese petitions were informed by Fronteras de Colotlán Indians’ prior experience of at least two abusive capitanes protectores, at least one abusive Franciscan priest, and the domestic enslavement of Indian women under the guise of protective custody.

OIDOR GASPAR DE LA FUENTE’S VISITA, 1608The excessive exploitation of subject populations by

Crown officials was a serious concern of seventeenth centurySpanish kings and viceroys (Camelo 1985:162-164). To curb such excesses, kings and viceroys dispatched prominent officials to conduct inspection visits, visitas, of specific jurisdictions. In 1608 and 1616 Crown inspectors visited Fronteras de Colotlán where they denounced, punished, and documented abuses against Indians perpetrated by capitanes protectores, priests, and Spanish colonists. Gaspar de la Fuente, an oidor (judge) of the Audiencia de Guadalajara, recorded several categories of abuse against Indians committed by Capitán Protector Chavez Bañuelos3 and local priests in Fronteras de Colotlán and the adjacent district of Tlaltenango in 1608.4 A group of Sierra de Tepeque Indians presented the inspector with a petition accusing Capitán Protector Bañuelos of forcing them to work without pay.5 The Oidor ordered Bañuelos to pay the workers in his presence and issued the Indians a writ of protection against3 The offending Capitán Protector’s name was not recorded in Oidor de laFuente’s report. However, a later inspector, Oidor Juan Dávalos y Toledo, reported that in Colotlán he had been shown a document issued toCapitán Protector Chavez Bañuelos by the Audiencia de Guadalajara, datedten months before Oidor de la Fuente’s visit. This was probably a record of Bañuelos’ installation. (Berthe, Calvo, Jimenez Pelayo 2000:345). 4 Archivo General de Indias (hereafter AGI), Seville, Contaduría 874. Atranscription of this document by Jean-Pierre Berthe is published in Sociedades en Construcción (Berthe, Calvo, Jimenez Pelayo 2000:105-154). English translation is mine.

3

forced labor.6 He reported that local priests’ cattle regularly damaged Indian cornfields,7 that priests employed depósito to enslave Indian women and children in Spanish households in Tlaltenango Valley,8 and that Indians protested clerics’ use of community funds for church festivals.9 He barred priests from engaging in depósito and ordered Crown officials to conduct an investigation before employing depósito. We might reasonably suppose that the offending priests had employed depósito to punish recalcitrant Indians and reward favored Spaniards with domestic slaves.

Oidor de la Fuente reported that shortly before his inspection, a priest of the Franciscan Convento de Colotlán had arranged for Spanish settlers from Tlaltenango to occupyTepehuan land near Colotlán, causing the Tepehuan owners to return to the Sierra de Tepeque. His brief record does not specify the means by which the Tepehuans were displaced, butit seems apparent that the land was taken by force. The Tlaltenango Spaniards’ capacity for paramilitary action against Indians is evident in two incidents recorded by the Oidor. He noted that the Tlaltenango Spaniards had suppressed an Indian revolt in the Sierra de Tepeque three years before his visit and had recently seized Indian land 5 Rosa Camelo (1985:163) found that exaction of unpaid labor was the most common abuse by priests and alcaldes mayores (local Spanish civil officials) against Indians during the early and middle Colonial period. The exaction of unpaid Indian labor in Fronteras de Colotlán, Tlaltenango, and elsewhere in the colony seems to have been a customary,although illegal, adaptation of repartimiento, a state-directed system in which Indian communities supplied work parties of adult men to Spanish enterprises at fixed intervals, for low wages (Bakewell 1997:193-194).6 Berthe, Calvo, Jimenez Pelayo 2000:1167 Berthe, Calvo, Jimenez Pelayo 2000:118. Cattle damage to Indians’ milpas (cornfields) was a common complaint during the visitas of 1608, 1616, and 1617. Cattle damage to milpas continues to be a problem in theHuichol Sierra today, despite stone walls and closed gates. Milpas were usually unfenced during the early Colonial period.8 Berthe, Calvo, Jimenez Pelayo 2000:114-118.9 Berthe, Calvo, Jimenez Pelayo 2000:118. In Colonial-period Indian pueblos, community assets, such as livestock, land, and cash were often managed by religious sodalities known as cofradias. These resources were customarily expended for secular as well as for religious purposes.

4

and houses in the Tlaltenango Valley by force of arms.10 Colotlán Indian leaders had denounced the expropriation of the Tepehuan land to the Viceroy, who ordered the Capitán Protector to expel the invaders and protect Tepehuan land rights. The priest had been defrocked by his superiors at the Franciscan Convento de San Francisco de Zacatecas. It seems reasonable to suppose that this priest had intended for the new Spanish settlers to impose obedience among his Indian subjects by force of arms.11 Although this attempt was discredited, Crown officials regularly proposed the foundation at Colotlán of a Spanish colony that would provide paramilitary force to control “willful and insolent”Indians.12 A regional Spanish militia was finally established in 1781 (Carmen 1961:37).

OIDOR JUAN DÁVALOS Y TOLEDO'S VISITA, 1616 In 1616 King Felipe III commissioned Juan Dávalos y

Toledo, an oidor of the Audiencia de Guadalajara, to 10 Berthe, Calvo, Jimenez Pelayo 2000:117-118.11 Clerics requested, but did not receive, military enforcement for missionary programs on this frontier during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. For example, in 1649 the Bishop of Guadalajara, Juan Ruiz Colmenero, wrote to King Felipe IV requesting “the intervention of the secular justices” to extract recalcitrant Indian communities from the Sierra de Tepeque. The King declined (AGI, Guadalajara 56, 20 Avril, 1649, parte 1, f.9-11). In 1711 a prominent Franciscan missionary, Fray Antonio Margil, rebuffed in his attempt to convert the Coras of the Sierra de Nayar, recommended that conversion proceed by means of military conquest and occupation (Our Lady of the Lake University Archive, Old Spanish Missions Collection, Correspondencedealing with Fr. Margil's entrance into Nayarit, 1711, frames 6:0112-6:0149). 12 For example, in 1706 the Audiencia de Guadalajara advised Viceroy Francisco Fernández de la Cueva Enríquez to install Spanish settlers in Colotlán to serve as “those who promptly [go to] the aid and garrison ofthe regular and secular ministers, since many times for lack of men for the safety of their persons, they [the priests] cannot execute the appropriate operations to tame those Indians' audacity, and they find themselves compelled to comply with their [the Indians'] will, or to abandon, each one, the post [as district priest]...(as has happened various times), from which results the serious damages...that the Indians are every day more willful and insolent.” Archivo General de la Nación, México (hereafter, AGN), Indios 95, f.132r-v.

5

undertake an extensive inspection of Nueva Galicia.13 The King provided Oidor Dávalos y Toledo with a list of abuses known to have been perpetrated against Indians by Crown officials, clergymen, encomenderos,14 miners, and Indian leaders and instructed the Oidor to ensure the "conservation, good treatment, and religious instruction of the Indians.”15 The Oidor visited Colotlán, Tlaltenango, and nearby pueblos in November of 1616, five months before Urdiñola’s visit to Colotlán. He summoned Indian leaders, took oral and written depositions, and received petitions. In Colotlán, Indian leaders charged that Capitán Protector Geronimo Ramiro had forced Indians to labor in his fields and to serve as long-distance messengers without pay, expropriated and planted Indians’ cornfields, sold two Indians into slavery,16 and engaged in repartimiento de mercancías. Repartimiento de mercancías was a scheme by means of which officials enriched themselves by forcing subjects to accept merchandise against future payment in local produce at an exchange rate set by the vendor (Pastor 1985:201-207).Oidor Dávalos y Toledo removed Capitán Protector Ramiro, replaced him with Alonso Pulido de Toro, and issued a written order prohibiting future capitanes protectores from engaging in agriculture or commerce, practicing repartimiento de mercancias, forcing Indians to work or deliver messages 13 Archivo de Instrumentos Públicos de Guadalajara, Ramo de Tierras y Aguas, Primera Colección, Libro 1, Documento 3. A transcription by Agueda Jiménez Pelayo is published in Sociedades en Construcción, edited by Jean-Pierre Berthe, Thomas Calvo, and Agueda Jiménez Pelayo, 2000, p. 169-355.14 Encomenderos were prominent Spaniards endowed with the right to exact labor and goods from specific Indian communities. 15 Berthe, Calvo, Jimenez Pelayo 2000:170. 16 The New Laws of 1542 prohibited Indian slavery unless licensed by theCrown. Nonetheless, the sale of “belligerent,” or “criminal” Indians was the most common method by which military and paramilitary personnel on the Nueva Galicia frontier profited from their poorly paid services until about 1600 (Powell 1975:109-111, Zavala 1994:261-446). Alonso andDiego’s case demonstrates that the practice continued until at least 1616 in Fronteras de Colotlán. The Capitán Protector apparently chargedthe Indian men with some offense and sold them to Juan de Dosal de la Madriz, who enslaved them in his silver mine in the Bolaños Canyon of the Sierra de Tepeque (Berthe, Calvo, Jimenez Pelayo 2000:342).

6

without pay, and selling Indians into slavery. Tlaxcalteco leaders "sewed it [the written order] into the memorandum book of their documents.”17 According to testimony presented to General Urdiñola during his visit to Colotlán, Alonso Pulido transgressed four of these prohibitions in hisfirst five months as Capitán Protector.

GENERAL URDIÑOLA’S MEETING, 1617General Urdiñola’s visit to Colotlán in April of 1617 was

precipitated by a rebellion launched in November of 1616 by a broad alliance of Indian groups in the adjacent Province of NuevaVizcaya. The “Tepehuan Revolt”—a calculated effort to expel Spaniards from Tepehuan, Tarahumara, Acaxee, and Xixime territory—was the greatest challenge to the Crown’s penetration and control of northern New Spain since the Mixtón War of 1541 (Borah1966:15-29, Galaviz de Capdevielle 1967:122-125, Gradie 2000:153-172).18 Five months after the first assault, Viceroy Diego Fernández de Córdoba directed General Urdiñola to investigate reports that rebel messengers had attempted to enlist Fronteras de Colotlán pueblos to their cause. General Urdiñola was perhapsthe most experienced Crown officer in the Zacatecas region duringthat era. He had fought in the Chichimeco War, participated in the foundation of congregaciones (Indian settlements)19 and Tlaxcalteco colonies, and led military campaigns against Indian uprisings. He served as governor of Nueva Vizcaya from 1603 until 1612 and as chief military officer of the region until his death in 1618 (Alessio 1981). In his report20 General Urdiñola noted that the Viceroy had instructed him to summon Sierra de Tepeque Indian leaders to determine:

if there are among them or in any pueblo of that Sierra any changes regarding the peace and obedience which they give to

17 Berthe, Calvo, Jimenez Pelayo 2000:340-344.18 Following Nuño de Guzmán’s invasion of the Nueva Galicia region, Cazcáns led an alliance of Indian groups in a rebellion known as the “Mixtón War.” Viceroy Antonio de Mendoza broke the rebellion in 1541 ata fortified hilltop, the Mixtón, with a massive force comprised largely of Indian troops from the central highlands of New Spain (Gerhard 1993:5-6, 42-46). 19 AGN, Provincias Internas 129, exp. 11: f.274v-276r. 20 AGN, Tierras 2686, f.154r-182v.

7

Your Majesty…[and] if somewhere some Indians have had tlatoles[messengers]21 and incitements from the rebelling Indians. And [to] exhort and advise them to be loyal vassals of Your Majesty, keeping the obedience which they give him.22

The Viceroy’s concern must have been motivated in part by knowledge of the Fronteras de Colotlán pueblos’ military capacity, demonstrated on a number of Crown expeditions on northern frontiers. The earliest record of Fronteras de Colotlánflecheros’ prowess is Capitán Pedro Davalos Montiel’s 1561 report to Viceroy Luis de Velasco (the elder) regarding an incident of the Chichimeco War, in which he lauds Indian troops from Colotlán, Tlaltenango, Huejúcar, and Susticacán.

All have helped against the rebels, who have retreated into the backcountry mountain ranges….The Christian Indians’…number in the four pueblos…amounts to 4300 not counting the old men and boys, and all are enlisted against the heathens,and they are always armed.23

A Sierra de Tepeque document purports to record Huichol flecheros’ participation in a successful four-month siege led by General Urdiñola and Capitán Pedro Salazar against a Guachichil fort on a hilltop in the central desert. That siege (if not invented) took place at least seven years prior to Urdiñola’s visit to Colotlán.24

On April 14, 1617 General Urdiñola arrived in Colotlán where he found that “several Indian governors and council members from the Sierra de Tepeque are gathered by his

21 Tlatole was a Nahuatl loanword in Colonial-period Spanish denoting both ‘Indian messengers’ and ‘Indian political meetings’.22 AGN, Tierras 2686, f. 157r, 162r.23 Biblioteca Publica del Estado de Jalisco, Fondo Franciscano, Guadalajara, Ramo Civil, caja 90, exp.19, f.3v-4v. 24 Archivo Histórico de Zapopan, Zapopan, caja Documentos Importantes 1,f.4r. This document, produced by Sierra de Tepeque Huichols, mimics an official genre used by Spanish officials to certify Indian troops’ military service. Although authored by Huichols, not Spanish officials,the document’s claims of military service were probably based on common knowledge regarding the participation of regional Indian (if not Huichol) troops in an actual siege. This campaign would have occurred before 1610, the last year of Urdiñola’s field leadership of military operations (Alessio 1981:294).

8

command.”25 Judging from the impressive speed with which Huichols traverse Sierra trails today, representatives from remote pueblos would have required two or more days to arrive in Colotlán, whether mounted or on foot. The Generalmust therefore have sent “his command” several days in advance of the meeting. His report documents the presence of men representing twelve Sierra de Tepeque pueblos, two lowland pueblos situated at the foot of the Sierra, two lowland pueblos adjacent to Colotlán, and four parcialidades (ethnic neighborhoods) of Colotlán.26 The primary languagesspoken in these communities were Huichol, Tepehuan, Tepecano(similar to Tepehuan), Zacateco, Cazcán, Tecuexe, and Tlaxcalteco.

The following day General Urdiñola questioned Geronimo Bañuelos, governor of the multi-ethnic pueblo of San Juan Bautista Mezquitic, and Martin Tzomon, probably governor of the Huichol pueblo of Nostic27 regarding their contact with rebel tlatoles. This was the only instance in which Urdiñola summoned or interrogated specific individuals. Tzomon and Bañuelos’ oral reply was recorded by Urdiñola’s scribe.

25 AGN, Tierras 2686, 157r.26 In 1591 Colotlán was divided into the parcialidades of Tlaxcala, Tochopa, and Soyatitan—identified with Tlaxcaltecos, Cazcáns, and “Chichimecos” respectively (Gerhard 1993:73-78; Sego 1998:132). The third petition recorded in Urdiñola’s report was presented by “the Indians of San Luis Colotlán,” including leaders of los Tonaltecos de la parzialidad de los de Tonala (AGN, Tierras 2686, f.170r). These Tonaltecos, orTecuexes, had immigrated from the Guadalajara region to Colotlán, probably as allies of the Spaniards during the Chichimeco War (Gerhard 1993:132, 137, 154-158), where they apparently comprised a fourth parcialidad.

27 I infer that Martin Tzomon was Huichol from earlier documents recording a Guezole (Huichol) leader in Colotlán named Somon (Powell 1977:201, 296) and a Capitan del pueblo de Colotlán named Diego Somoni, an acquaintance of Urdiñola (AGN, Provincias Internas 129, exp. 11, f. 287r). Martin Tzomon is identified in the present document as a resident of multi-ethnic Mezquitic, but perhaps represented the neighboring Huichol pueblo of Nostic. Geronimo’s Spanish surname is recorded elsewhere as Bañuelos (Biblioteca Nacional de México at Universidad Nacional de México, México, D.F., Fondo Franciscano, caja 11, exp. 171, f.6).

9

They said that what happened was that the Chichimeco Indians of Guazamota and San Francisco del Mezquital28 sent tlatoles to these witnesses to ask them if they wanted to rise up in arms and rebel against the serviceof His Majesty, rejecting the peace that they had previously agreed to. And these witnesses replied [to the tlatoles] that they were in their houses with their women and children content and quiet and peaceful. Andthat they did not want to rise up in arms unless it wasto help the General against them if they commit any trickery.29

Urdiñola pursued his interrogation with “more and more questions,” to which Tzomon and Bañuelos replied:

that they are peaceful and quiet, without thought to make any sort of change. And the General warned them...that it is proper that they continue the peace...because [if not] they will be punished with thefull severity of God. And they said that they will comply.30

Tzomon and Bañuelos then divulged that a second tlatole had informed them that the “Chichimecos” of Guazamota, San Francisco del Mezquital, and Sauceda planned to massacre theresidents of Chalchihuites, a Spanish mining town.31 Once this interrogation had been completed, the two leaders presented Urdiñola with a petition written in Nahuatl. Baltazar de Ordaz, the Tlaxcalteco scribe who had prepared the petitions, probably read the document aloud. In this petition Tzomon and Bañuelos proclaimed loyalty; promised toremain at peace; disavowed knowledge or acceptance of rebel tlatoles; and disclaimed sympathy for the rebel cause.32 The

28Guazamota and San Francisco del Mezquital were Tepehuan pueblos located on the eastern flank of the Sierra Madre Occidental about 120 kmnorthwest of Colotlán (Gerhard 1993:212). Tepehuanes from this region participated in the Tepehuan Revolt (Galaviz de Capdevielle 1967:124).29 AGN, Tierras 2686, f.157v.30 AGN, Tierras 2686, f.158r-158v.31 AGN, Tierras 2686, f.158v-159r. Sauceda was a Tepehuan region north of Durango. Chalchihuites was located at the flank of the Sierra, near San Francisco del Mezquital (Gerhard 1993:131, 235).32 AGN, Tierras 2686, f.168v.

10

discrepancy between Tzomon and Bañuelos’ oral and written statements with regard to tlatoles suggests that they had not anticipated Urdiñola’s foreknowledge on this point. The General no doubt perceived the two leaders’ failure to inform the Capitán Protector of enemy plans as a breach of their obligation as loyal subjects and a sign of sympathy for the rebellion. Urdiñola’s report, however, records neither reprimand nor sanction against Tzomon and Bañuelos for these shortcomings. This lenience suggests that Urdiñola’s mission to ensure the loyalty of Fronteras de Colotlán flecheros outweighed other considerations.

Tzomon and Bañuelos’ petition then “implored” Urdiñola to install a specified candidate, Francisco Davila Carillo, as Capitán Protector of Colotlán, without explicitly requesting that Capitán Protector Pulido be removed. They asserted that “the other the old men [pueblo leaders], your vassals, like him [Davila] a lot” and that Davila “resembles” Miguel Caldera, the district’s original Capitán Protector.33 Caldera, a Mestizo whose mother was a ColotlánIndian, had been known for diplomacy and respect in his relations with Indian communities (Powell 1977). Tzomon andBañuelos recalled that Caldera had appointed Davila as his successor in the post of Capitán Protector. Elsewhere in his report, Urdiñola noted that Davila had "congregated and settled" the Fronteras de Colotlán pueblo of Huejuquilla “bymy order and command,” an event then two decades past.34 Tzomon and Bañuelos had thus proposed the installation of a Spaniard who had served under Urdiñola, had held the post ofCapitán Protector, and, they claimed, had earned the approval of the district’s Indian leaders.

Urdiñola next conferred with a group of men representing twelve pueblos, most of which were situated in the Sierra de Tepeque. He exhorted them to maintain the peace and ordered them to deliver any future tlatoles to him in Zacatecas. The leaders replied that they were “quiet and

33 AGN, Tierras 2686, f.169r. 34 AGN, Tierras 2686, f.162r; AGN Provincias Internas 129, exp.11. An approximate foundation date for Huejuquilla can be assigned with reference to Miguel Caldera’s death date of 1597 (Powell 1977:243).

11

peaceful and do not agree to anything except to remain in their lands and be Christians.”35 They then presented the General with a detailed written petition in which they charged Capitán Protector Pulido and his associates with “robbing our horses to serve as breeding stock for their ranches.” They claimed that Pulido and his men had exacted horses from each pueblo by force of arms and by means of repartimiento de mercancias. They concluded with a request that the General replace Pulido with Francisco Davila. Their capping phrase, “thus have discussed and consulted all of your sons,” suggests that their petition had been generated prior to the General’s arrival in a meeting of assembled pueblo representatives.

Urdiñola then met with a group of acting and past officials from three Colotlán parcialidades and two nearby pueblos. These leaders presented a written petition affirming fealty and accusing Capitán Protector Pulido of forcing men to serve as long-distance messengers without payand of suppressing competition to his store in Colotlán.

It afflicts us that he has a store here and does not allow that anyone else at all sells anything. If perchance he sees that someone sells either salt or fruit, then he puts them in jail and he imposes a penalty on them.36

The petition concluded with a request that Pulido be replaced with Davila. In response, Urdiñola:

released an order for these Indians such that the [new]Capitán Protector throws Alonso Pulido out of this pueblo and does not allow him to remain, under penalty of 100 pesos.37

At the conclusion of the first day of the meeting Urdiñola issued a written order appointing Davila to the post of Capitán Protector of Colotlán. He linked this turn of events to his original mission by proclaiming that Capitán

35 AGN Tierras 2686, f.159v, 173v-175r.36 AGN Tierras 2686, f.170v.37 AGN Tierras 2686, f.160v.

12

Protector Davila would “protect and defend them from their enemies” on condition that they remain peaceful and loyal.38

The following day five Tlaxcalteco leaders presented a written petition charging that Capitán Protector Pulido had regularly forced Tlaxcaltecos, Tonaltecos, Tochos, and Chichimecos39 to work without pay—“they bring him firewood and bring water and they guard his horses and sweep the house.”40 The petition also charged that Pulido regularly jailed and fined itinerant merchants, such that vendors had ceased to visit the town. The petition’s authors asked thatDavila replace Pulido and threatened to abandon Colotlán if Pulido was not removed. In response Urdiñola reiterated hisorder exiling Pulido.

The next day a group of "Indians of Tlaxcala, Tepeque, and their districts" petitioned Urdiñola for a document to facilitate an audience with the Viceroy, noting that they intended to depart for Mexico City in four days.41 The apparent purpose of this petition was to warn the General that if he did not remove Pulido, they would bring the matter before the Viceroy. Ordaz, the Tlaxcalteco scribe, then presented his own petition, charging that the Indian Governor of the Parcialidad of Tlaxcala:

38 AGN Tierras 2686, f.162r.39 “Tochos” designated Cazcáns. “Chichimecos” designated a variety of regional groups including Huichols, Guachichils, Zacatecos, Tepecanos, and Tepehuans. 40 AGN Tierras 2686, f.177v.41 The petition’s authors identify themselves as "we, the Tlaxcaltecos",but claim to represent the pueblos of Santiago, Santa Maria, and Tepeque, as well as the Tonalteco and Tocho parcialidades of Colotlán. That claim is credible since the petition was signed by five men who were probably from other pueblos or parcialidades since they are not identified elsewhere in the report as Tlaxcaltecos. This suggests that Tlaxcalteco representatives assumed a leading role in organizing and directing efforts to depose Pulido. The plan to take the issue to the Viceroy was perhaps based on the precedent of a successful delegation sent to Mexico City before the 1608 visita. Although Gaspar de la Fuente's report of the 1608 visita does not record how news of the Tepehuan land grab reached the Viceroy, but one possibility is that Colotlán Indians traveled to Mexico City to petition him directly (Berthe, Calvo, Jimenez Pelayo 2000:116-117).

13

wants...us not say a single thing against him [Pulido] because he is his compadre [ally].42 For which reason he [the Governor] has conferred at length with the priest, planning that when you leave, they will put me in jail and tie me to a pole, because they say that I induce your sons, the Chichimecos, to petition Your Mercy.43

Ordaz concluded with a request for a writ of protection fromretribution. The final petition of that day was presented by a group of Tlaxcalteco leaders calling themselves los viejojitos, "the little old men," an allusion to their status as senior authorities of their parcialidad. They charged that the Tlaxcalteco Governor "does not favor us, nor speak for us before Your Mercy" and insisted that Urdiñola "in no way leave here the Capitán [Pulido] whose offenses we have told you about."44

The passages of Urdiñola’s report reviewed thus far enable several inferences. Representatives from about 20 Indian communities evidently met shortly before the General’s arrival. These leaders, aware of the Crown’s urgent desire to ensure that Fronteras de Colotlán flecheros did not join the rebellion, determined to employ the crisis to leverage replacement of a despised Capitán Protector witha man of their choice. They settled on Davila as their candidate and drew up petitions detailing Pulido’s offenses.The lack of reference to Pulido’s exile, mandated on the first day, in petitions presented on following days indicates that most or all of the petitions were produced before the meeting. The presence of representatives from 12Sierra de Tepeque pueblos, some located two days’ travel from Colotlán, indicates that several messengers were sent

42 The term compadre, "godfather," invokes the close relationship betweenfather and godfather. The Hispanic institution of compadrazgo was a keymeans for alliance-building between families.43 AGN, Tierras 2686, f.180r. Baltazar Ordaz’ ethnicity is not recordedin Urdiñola’s report, but Dávalos y Toledo's report, written five monthsearlier, describes him as a resident of the parcialidad de los tlaxcaltecos (Berthe, Calvo, Jimenez Pelayo 2000:338). Therefore his phrase nuestro governador refers to the Governor of the Parcialidad de Tlaxcala.44 AGN, Tierras 2686, f.180v.

14

to summon spokespeople from distant pueblos. Capitán Protector Pulido, aware that Sierra leaders might denounce his extraction of horses, is unlikely to have dispatched messengers to remote pueblos. He would have been compelled,however, to announce the upcoming visit in Colotlán, if not in hinterland locations. It seems reasonable to suppose that Colotlán Indian leaders, informed of the visit, dispatched messengers to remote Sierra locations to ensure that ample testimony against the Capitán Protector was presented to General Urdiñola. The Indians’ plan to designate a replacement for Pulido no doubt resulted from their disappointment with the results of Oidor Dávalos y Toledo’s attempt to remedy corruption in the office of Capitán Protector by replacing Geronimo Ramiro with Alonso Pulido de Toro five months earlier. Pulido, who could not have foreseen that a ranking Crown official would visit Colotlán so soon, had transgressed all but one of Dávalos y Toledo’s prohibitions for future capitanes protectores as he set about exploiting his new position to monopolize retail commerce and establish a horse ranch. A broad sector of Fronteras de Colotlán Indian society was allied against Capitán Protector Pulido. The existence of a pro-Pulido faction, including a significant number of Tlaxcaltecos, is indicated by Ordaz’ claim that the Tlaxcalteco Governor was Pulido’s compadre and conspired with the priest to jail him once the General departed. The Tlaxcalteco community probably selected their Governors from among the male heads of leading lineages, so the Governor in question is likely to have enjoyed significant support within the parcialidad.45 Finally, Urdiñola’s prompt response to the request that 45 There is no specific documentary evidence for the selection of cablido (Spanish-style municipal council) officers in the Parcialidad de Tlaxcala. Charles Gibson (1952:107-108) notes that between 1545 and 1591 the Governor of the Province of Tlaxcala (in central New Spain) waselected every two years from among “the prominent Indian nobles (principales) of the cabecera whose turn it was to provide the governor.” The Tlaxcalteco immigrants who settled in Colotlán had departed from the Province of Tlaxcala in 1591. Like Tlaxcalteco colonists in Chalchihuites and Nueva Tlaxcala (Gibson 1952:187), Colotlán Tlaxcaltecos are likely to have instituted an electoral system similar to that of their home Province.

15

Pulido be removed, acquiescence to the Indians’ nomination of Davila, and positive response to two unrelated petitions not described here indicate that the crisis of the Tepehuan Revolt impelled General Urdiñola to submit to the Indians’ requests as a means of ensuring Fronteras de Colotlán flecheros’ continued loyalty.

MARIA ANA’S PETITIONMaria Ana’s written petition, presented on the final

day of the meeting, began:My name is Maria Ana. I am a native of Michoacán. I live here in San Luis Colotlán. I appear before Your Mercy, my great Señor Capitán General. Before Your Mercy I humble myself, kissing your noble hands and noble feet, because of my anguish and affliction. [I testify] against the Señor Capitán [Pulido] who causes great anguish. And it is like this, before Your Mercy I declare that one day the priest Fray Rodrigo and alsoFray Francisco went to my house. For which reason [Capitán Protector Pulido] got angry with me, saying "who is the woman who is within?" He searched for the woman in every corner. He said that I was hiding her.46

Although Maria Ana framed her petition as a denunciation of Capitán Protector Pulido, she designated the two priests by name, noting relative rank. Fray Rodrigo must have been theprelate of the Convento de Colotlán. She asserted that Pulido’s thorough search of her house was motivated by the priests’ visit, but she did not explicate the connection between the clerics’ visit and Pulido’s search, nor did she comment on the imagined woman. Her petition continued:

And then he said to me, very upset, "She was [here] with you, now just to do that which my heart desires." He said that to me there. And then he said to me, veryeagerly, "You, daughter, I must force you. Even if you

46 AGN, Tierras 2686, f.181v.

16

do not want to, I must do it." 47 For which reason I amvery worried.48

Here Maria Ana indicated that Pulido’s visit was motivated by sexual desire. When he did not find the woman whom he sought, he shifted his attention to Maria Ana to attain “that which my heart desires.” Her phrase, “for which reason I am very worried,” implied that Pulido had not carried out his threatened rape. Her account of Pulido’s sexually motivated search and rampant lust apparently implied, in terms comprehensible to Urdiñola and others in the audience, that Pulido had mistakenly imagined Maria Ana to be the proprietor of a small-scale brothel. The petitionconcluded:

And now he wants to send me to the Villa of Xeres to confine me under the control of Juan Martin Dorado.49 And he wants to remove me [from Colotlán to Xeres] so that I am there in his capitán's house, which is why I come before Your Mercy. I very earnestly ask you to favor and help me and to give me a writ of protection to ensure that [Pulido] does not make a mockery of me or aggrieve me while I wait here for my husband whose name is Francisco Juan, who went to Michoacán. That iswhy I am alone and why this Capitán acts that way with me. Well, he is known to do that ever so often. And for this reason I prostrate deeply before Your Mercy, kissing your illustrious hands and your dear feet. Please have pity on me, your vassal. Help me and favorme.50

Her phrase depositarme en poder de, which I translate “to confine me under the control of,” refers to the practice of

47 Tu hija yo la tengo de estrupar aun que no quieras tu lo tengo de hazer. Estrupar (an alternate form of estuprar) denoted ‘rape.’48 AGN, Tierras 2686, f.181v.49Juan Martin Dorado was a prominent rancher and cabildo official of Xeres(now Jeres), a Spanish town about 70 km north of Colotlán (Berthe, Calvo, Jimenez Pelayo 2000:351-352).50 AGN, Tierras 2686, f.181v-182r. No response from Urdiñola is recorded in the report. A marginal inscription made at the Audiencia deMéxico mandates that the Capitán not "make use of her" and that Maria Ana was to be protected.

17

depósito, the judicial instrument by means of which Spanish authorities confined Indian women and children in Spanish households. Maria Ana implied that once isolated in a distant town and confined within Pulido’s associate’s household, Pulido intended to “make a mockery of [her],” that is, to abuse her sexually. This charge suggests that despite constraints mandated by Oidor de la Fuente in 1608, local officials continued to deploy depósito to exploit Indian women. If so, this passage gave voice to a grievanceheld by a number of Fronteras de Colotlán Indian women. Maria Ana’s choice of the phrase haga burla de mi, “make a mockery of me,” as a euphemism for rape references the crucial importance of personal honor. That concern might have prevented her from registering a charge of rape in her petition, had Pulido in fact forced her “to do that which myheart desires" after failing to find a prostitute in her house. Her closing comment, “well, he is known to do that ever so often,” conveyed a claim that Pulido regularly abused, or attempt to abuse, vulnerable female Indian subjects and that this transgression was public knowledge. If justified, that charge also voiced a grievance held by other Colotlán women.

Finally, we return to the link between the Franciscans’visit to Maria Ana’s house and Pulido’s search for a prostitute. Maria Ana’s deposition began:

I declare that one day the priest Fray Rodrigo and alsoFray Francisco went to my house. For which reason [Pulido] got angry with me, saying "who is the woman who is there within?"

In this passage Maria Ana asserted, indirectly and without explication, that upon witnessing or hearing of the priests’visit, Pulido inferred that she was operating a brothel. She implied that Pulido based his inference on belief or knowledge that Fray Rodrigo and Fray Francisco had previously consorted with prostitutes. Maria Ana thus defamed Colotlán’s Franciscan priests by attributing knowledge of their dishonorable behavior to Pulido. What motivated Maria Ana to include an attack on the clerics’ moral authority in her deposition? Baltasar de Ordaz’

18

petition provides an answer. The scribe charged that Pulido’s compadre, the Tlaxcalteco Governor, “has conspired with the priest, planning that when you leave, they will putme in the jail and tie me to a pole.” Maria Ana’s indirect charge that the priests were known to frequent prostitutes can be read as an attempt to pre-empt the planned revenge byundermining the priests’ moral authority. We might also suppose that the attempted expropriation of Tepehuan land byTlaltenango Spaniards aided by a Colotlán priest, thwarted adecade earlier, had inspired an enduring attitude of suspicion and vigilance regarding priests’ motives and projects. Perhaps Maria Ana’s defamation of Fray Rodrigo and Fray Francisco expressed a long-standing local strategy to constrain ecclesiastical power by any means possible. This reading of the various motives and methods in play during General Urdiñola’s meeting suggests that Maria Ana, aforeigner from the Province of Michoacán, unaccompanied by her husband and lacking a local Purépecha parcialidad as a base of support, joined the Fronteras de Colotlán leaders’ alliance against Pulido as an able strategist and formidableopponent of the three most powerful Spaniards in the town towhich she and her husband had immigrated.

CONCLUSIONAt the moment of General Urdiñola’s visit to Colotlán

in the spring of 1617, an alliance of Tepehuan, Tarahumara, Acaxee, and Xixime rebels were challenging Spanish dominion in the neighboring province of Nueva Vizcaya. Their rebellion failed to spread to Nueva Galicia, but questions regarding the acceptable expression of Crown power in the Indian district of Fronteras de Colotlán came to the fore during the General’s meeting. His visit and ready acquiescence to petitioners’ demands reflected both the Crown’s reluctance to risk Fronteras de Colotlán pueblos’ intervention on behalf of the rebels and the Crown’s dependence on Fronteras de Colotlán flecheros for regional military expeditions. The petitioners’ selection of Davila for the post of Capitán Protector constituted a demand for areturn to a colonial contract emphasizing respect and

19

interdependence. Miguel Caldera, the first Capitán Protector, had negotiated the original agreements between the Crown and the region’s Indian communities on those termsduring the final decade of the sixteenth century (Powell 1977:116-146). Martin Tzomon and Geronimo Bañuelos observedthat Francisco Davila “resembles” Miguel Caldera and recalled that Caldera had appointed Davila to follow him in the post of Capitán Protector. Presumably the petitioners were confident that Davila would reinstate the terms of Caldera’s original contract between the Crown and their pueblos. The petitioners’ strategy for dealing with problematic expressions of Spanish power was thus not expulsion of all Spaniards, as proposed by rebel tlatoles, butinsistence on a return to relations based upon respect, mutual obligation, and reciprocity.

20

BIBLIOGRAPHYAlessio Robles, Vito1981 Francisco de Urdiñola y el Norte de la Nueva España.

México: Editorial Porrua.Bakewell, Peter1997 A History of Latin America. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishers.Berthe, Jean-Pierre, Thomas Calvo, and Agueda Jimenez Pelayo2000 Sociedades en construcción: La Nueva Galicia según las

visitas de oidores, 1606-1616. Guadalajara: Universidadde Guadalajara, CEMCA.

Blosser, Bret2007 "Because they helped the Christians, and went

fighting everywhere, by the force of their lives and the spilling of blood": Flechero Service and Political Leverage on a Nueva Galicia Frontier. In Indian Conquistadors: Native Militaries in the Conquest of Mesoamerica. L. Matthew and M. Oudijk, eds. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Borah, Woodrow1966 La defensa fronteriza durante la gran rebelión

tepehuana. In Historia Mexicana. Vol. 16. pp. 15-29.Camelo, Rosa1985 El cura y el alcalde mayor. In El gobierno provincial

en la Nueva España. Woodrow Borah, ed. pp. 149-165. Mexico City: UNAM.

Galaviz de Capdevielle, Maria Elena1967 Rebeliones indígenas en el norte del Reino de la Nueva

España, XVI-XVII. México: Editorial Campesina.Carmen Velázquez, Maria del1961 Colotlán: Doble Frontera Contra Los Bárbaros. México:

UNAM.Gerhard, Peter

1972 A Guide to the Historical Geography of New Spain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1993 The North Frontier of New Spain. Norman: University of

Oklahoma Press.Gibson, Charles

21

1952 Tlaxcala in the Sixteenth Century. New Haven: Yale Univeristy Press.

Gradie, Charlotte M.2000 The Tepehuan Revolt of 1616. Salt Lake City: University

of Utah Press.Pastor, Rodolfo1985 El repartimiento de mercancías y los alcaldes mayores

novohispanos: un sistema de explotación, de sus orígenes a la crisis de 1810. In El gobierno provincialen la Nueva España. Woodrow Borah, ed. pp. 201-236. Mexico City: UNAM.

Powell, Philip Wayne1975 Soldiers, Indians, and Silver: North America's First

Frontier War. Tempe: Arizona State University Press.1977 Mexico's Miguel Caldera: The Taming of America's First

Frontier, 1548 - 1597. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Zavala, Silvio1994 Los esclavos de Nueva España. México: El Colegio Nacional.

22