1 McBryde, Felix Webster, “The Native Economy of Southwestern Guatemala,” (doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Calif., 1940), p. 101 Google Scholar cites 65 per cent for 1936; Whetten, Nathan L., Guatemala: the Land and the People (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961), pp. 27, 48-49Google Scholar, and 53 cite 54 per cent for 1950. The available estimates indicate the percentage of Indian population is decreasing, but this fact may derive more from a shifting classification used in distinguishing who is categorized as Indian rather than from any numerical decline.

2 McBryde, “Native Economy,” p. 106.

3 República de Guatemala, Sexto censo de población de abril 18 de 1950 (Dirección General de Estadística, Guatemala, 1950), p. xxxii. McBryde, Felix Webster, Cultural and Historical Geography of Southwest Guatemala (Smithsonian Institute of Social Anthropology, Publication No. 4, Washington, 1945), p. 128.Google Scholar Of the 353 municipios into which the Guatemalan departments were subdivided in the 1930's, 290 of them were in the western highland and north central regions where the Indian population was concentrated. See Sol Tax, “The Municipios of the Midwestern Highlands of Guatemala,” American Anthropologist, XXXIX (1937), 425.Google Scholar Of the 315 municipios recognized in 1950, 181 of them reported 60 per cent or more Indians, and 84 of them had 90 per cent or more Indians. See Arias, Jorge B., “Aspectos demográficos de la población indígena de Guatemala,” Boletín estadístico (Dirección General de Estadística, Guatemala, 1959), Nos. 1-2, p. 21.Google Scholar

4 Although an estimated 40 per cent of the total population of 1950 spoke an Indian language in the home, the figure jumps to 65 per cent in the western highlands and to 80 per cent in the north central region. Sexto censo, p. xlv, and cuadro 28, p. 167. For a discussion of the marked Indian resistance, if not hostility, to “Ladinoization,” see Siegel, Morris, “Resistance to Cultural Change in Western Guatemala,” Sociology and Social Research, XXV (1941), 414–430.Google Scholar

5 An estimated 88 per cent of the total Indian population in 1950 was living in communities with fewer than 2,500 inhabitants and only 2,2 per cent in cities with a population of 10,000 or more. Whereas in 1950, 87 per cent of the Indian population was classified as rural, in the seven departments of the western highland region 89 per cent of the Indians were classified as rural, and in the two departments of the north central region the figure rose to 95 per cent. Whetten, Guatemala, pp. 52-54, and appendix Table 3, p. 363, based on the Sexto censo de población de 1950.

6 Francis Le Beau, “Agricultura de Guatemala,” Integración Social en Guatemala (Seminario de integración social Guatemalteca, edited by Jorge Luis Arrióla, Guatemala, 1956), pp. 267-312, especially pp. 275-276; plus commentaries by Manuel Noriega Morales, pp. 313-331, and by Leo A. Suslow, pp. 333-337. Also refer to Higbee, E. C., “The Agricultural Regions of Guatemala,” Geographical Review, XXXVII (1947), 177–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Whetten, Guatemala, Table 49, p. 90, and p. 97, based on the Sexto censo de población de 1950, cuadros 42 y 43. Seasonal migratory labor shifts from a predominantly Indian region to commercial farming areas do not necessarily result in any permanent changes in the existing social patterns. For an interesting parallel see Heath, Dwight B., “Land Reform in Bolivia,” Inter-American Economic Affairs, XII (1959), 3–27 Google Scholar, and his comment on p. 22.

8 In the seven departments of the western highlands 133,922 Indian operators held an average of 7.4 acres each compared to an average of 51 acres each held by 28,367 Ladinos. In the two departments of the north central region another 34,168 Indians held an average of 9.9 acres each compared to an average of 205 acres each held by 6,174 Ladinos. The western region has, however, the highest percentage of farm “ownership” at 72 per cent. For Guatemala as a whole, the average number of acres held by 224,840 Indian farm operators was only 7.6. Nearly half of all Guatemalan farm operators, usually Indian, subsisted on tiny plots of less than 3.5 acres and involving only 3.3 per cent of the total farm land; while 0.3 per cent of the farm operators, predominantly Ladino, held 50.3 per cent of all the farm land in farms of over 1,115 acres. See Whetten, Guatemala, appendix Table 7, p. 367. and pp. 93-94, citing Censo agropecuario, 3 (1950), Población agrícola y otros aspectos, table 27, 118, and Censo agropecuario, 1 (1950), table 6, 38. Also see Whetten, , “Land Reform in a Modern World,” Rural Sociology, XIX (1954), 332 Google Scholar. Not only did 76 per cent of the farmers hold less than 10 per cent of the land, but it has been estimated that 83 per cent of the arable land of Guatemala was already utilized in agricultural activities: de Souza, Joáo Goncalves, “Aspects of Land Tenure Problems in Latin America,” Rural Sociology, XXV (1960), 29.Google Scholar By comparison, Goncalves estimates the percentage of arable land being utilized in Nicaragua at 10, Peru 10, Venezuela 40, Colombia 8, Brazil 10, and Mexico 16. The figure for Guatemala seems very high, especially when one recalls the relatively empty eastern regions of Guatemala that the government has been trying for so long to develop.

9 Sam Schulman, , “Land Tenure Among the Aborigines of Latin America,” Americas, XIII (1957), 51.Google Scholar Also McBride, George M., “Land Tenure: Latin America,” Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, IX, 118–122.Google Scholar

10 Wissler, Clark, The American Indian (New York: D. C. McMurtrie, 1917), pp. 173–174.Google Scholar

11 Schulman, “Land Tenure,” pp. 49-50. Also see Julian Steward in the foreword to McBryde, Cultural and Historical Geography.

12 Roys, Ralph L., The Indian Background of Colonial Yucatan (Washington: Carnegie Institution, Publication 548, 1943)Google Scholar; Redfield, Robert, Folk Culture of Yucatan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941).Google Scholar

13 Schulman, “Land Tenure,” pp. 60-62; Roys, Indian Background, pp. 38-39; Redfield, Folk Culture, pp. 114-116; and McBride, George M., The Land Systems of Mexico (New York: American Geographical Society, 1923), pp. 111–118.Google Scholar

14 McBride, George M., “Highland Guatemala and its Maya Communities,” Geographical Review, XXXII (1942), 252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Felix McBryde, “Native Economy,” p. 108. McBryde relies chiefly on Spinden.

15 Shook, Edwin M. and Proskouriakoff, Tatiana, “Settlement Patterns in Meso-America and the Sequence in the Guatemalan Highlands,” pp. 93–100;Google Scholar and Borhegyi, Stephan F. de, “Settlement Patterns in the Guatemalan Highlands: Past and Present,” pp. 101–106 Google Scholar in Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the New World (edited by Gordon R. Willey (New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, Vol. 23, 1956).

16 Weeks, David, “European Antecedents of Land Tenure and Agrarian Organization of Hispanic America,” The Journal of Land and Public Utility Economics, XXIII (1947), 63–66 Google Scholar; McBride, Land Systems, pp. 106-111.

17 Wagley, Charles, Economics of a Guatemalan Village (Menasha, Wis.: The American Anthropological Assoc., 1941), pp. 59–60.Google Scholar For a useful general analysis of colonial land and labor practices, see Weeks, David, “The Agrarian System of the Spanish American Colonies,” The Journal of Land and Public Utility Economics, XXIII (1947), 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 “N379 Ley 2a, Decreto de la asamblea legislativa, de 26 de agosto de 1829”, Recopilación de las leyes de Guatemala compuesta y arreglada por Don Manuel Pineda de Mont (Guatemala, 1869), I, 662-667.

19 McBride, “Land Tenure,” p. 120. For similar tendencies in Bolivia, see Weeks, David, “Land Tenure in Bolivia,” The Journal of Land and Public Utility Economics, XXIII (1947), 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Julian Steward, “Foreword,” to McBryde, Cultural and Historical Geography.

21 Farge, Oliver La, “Maya Ethnology: The Sequence of Cultures,” in The Maya and Their Neighbors (New York: D. Appleton-Century, 1940), p. 285.Google Scholar

22 “N378, Ley la, Decreto de la asamblea constituyente de 27 de enero de 1825”, and “N379, Ley 2a, Decreto de la asamblea legislativa, de 26 de agosto de 1829”, Pineda de Mont, Recopilación, I, 658-662, 662-667. N378 Ley la seems to have been the cornerstone on which similar legislation was later based.

23 “N387 Ley 10a, Decreto de la asamblea legislativa, de 28 de abril de 1836”, and “N388 Ley lia, Decreto de la asamblea legislativa, de 13 de agosto de 1836”. For evidence of confusion and resulting difficulties, see “N390 Ley 13a, Decreto del gobierno, de 2 de noviembre de 1837”, Pineda de Mont, Recopilación, I, 677-679, 679- 682, and 682-686.

24 For a synopsis of the basic reasoning underlying mestizaje, see Tannenbaum, Frank, Peace by Revolution: An Interpretation of Mexico (New York: Columbia University Press, 1933), pp. 195–196.Google Scholar Also see Salz, Beate, “Indianismo,” Social Research, XI (1944), 441–469.Google Scholar

25 “Decreto número 170, de 8 de enero de 1877”. For indications of attempted follow-up: “Reglamenta la tramitación de terrenos ejidales, de 20 de marzo de 1891”, and “Las certificaciones o títulos de propiedad… de 4 de marzo de 1893”, in Leyes Vigentes, Coleccionadas por Rosendo P. Méndez (Guatemala, 1927), pp. 321-322, 326-327. Also see La Farge, “Maya Ethnology,” p. 283.

26 Quoted in Wagley, Economics, p. 61.

27 Carrera, Antonio Goubaud, “Indian Adjustments to Modern National Culture,” Acculturation in the Americas, edited by Sol Tax (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952), p. 245.Google Scholar

28 “Reglamento para la organización y explotación de los ejidos que actualmente poseen los pueblos de la república”, issued by Ubico, July 16, 1931; see further, Decreto Número 2006, issued by Ubico, May 26, 1934: Leyes Vigentes de Gobernación y Justicia, recopiladas por Rosendo P. Méndez (Guatemala, 1937), pp. 654-659.

29 See Chap. VIII “Agrarian Reform” in Whetten, Guatemala; and Whetten, “Land Reform,” pp. 333-334, citing Ley de reforma agraria, decreto número 900, Art. 27.

30 Whetten, Guatemala, pp. 162-163.

31 Quoted in McBryde, “Native Economy,” p. 132. Also see McBryde's remarks on pp. 133, 136, and 139.

32 Sol Tax, Heritage of Conquest (Glencoe: Free Press, 1952)Google Scholar; Tax briefly discusses communal land tenure in “Economy and Technology,” pp. 60-62, but more interesting is the group “Discussion” on p. 74. A very superficial analysis appears in Kirk, William, “Social Change Among the Highland Indians of Guatemala,” Sociology and Social Research, XXIII (1939), 321–333.Google Scholar

33 Bunzel, Ruth, Chichicastenango: A Guatemalan Village, American Ethnological Society, Publication 22 (Locust Valley, N.Y.: J. J. Augustin, 1952), p. 16 Google Scholar; Wagley, Economics, p. 63; Manning Nash, Machine Age Maya: The Industrialization of a Guatemalan Community, Memoir No. 87 in The American Anthropologist, LX, No. 2, pt. 2 (April 1958), p. 93.

34 Towns such as Santa Ana Huista, Jacaltenango, Ixtahuacan, and San Antonio Huista still possessed a major portion of communal land; San Miguel retained about one-third of its land on a communal basis, but in Cuilco, San Juan Ixcoy, Saloma, Santa Eulalia, Concepción, and Chimaltenango the practice of communal holdings had been almost entirely abandoned, and La Libertad, Colotenango, Neuton, and La Democracia allegedly had no common lands. Stadelman, Raymond, “Maize Cultivation in Northwestern Guatemala,” Contributions to American Anthropology and History, VI, No. 33 (Washington, 1940), pp. 102 and 105.Google Scholar

35 McBride, “Highland Guatemala,” p. 260.

36 Schickel, Rainer, “Theories Concerning Land Tenure,” Journal of Farm Economics, XXXIV (1952), 734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Gillin, John, “Ethos and Cultural Aspects of Personality,” Heritage of Conquest, edited by Sol Tax (Glencoe: Free Press, 1952), pp. 206–208 Google Scholar; also see Bunzel, Chichicastenango, pp. 18-25.

38 For a description of religious ceremony surrounding agricultural activity see Wagley, Economics, pp. 32-44, and McBryde, Felix W., Solóla: A Guatemalan Town and Cakchiquel Market Center (New Orleans: MARI, Tulane University of Louisiana, 1933), p. 79.Google Scholar

39 Stadelman, “Maize Cultivation,” pp. 106 ff.; Bunzel, Chichicastenango, pp. 16-17; Wagley, Economics, pp. 63-64; McBride, “Highland Guatemala,” p. 260.

40 Wagley, Economics, p. 62.

41 Wagley, Economics, p. 64 and Bunzel, Chichicastenango, p. 17.

42 For four interesting case studies of inheritance and land transfer difficulties, see: Sol Tax, Penny Capitalism, A Guatemalan Indian Economy (Smithsonian Institute of Social Anthropology Publication No. 16, Washington, 1953), pp. 71-77. For another example see Bunzel, Chichicastenango, p. 23.

43 Wagley, Economics, pp. 65-66, and Tax, Penny Capitalism, pp. 65, 68-70.

44 Tax, Penny Capitalism, p. 80.

45 The amount of cultivable land in the highland region—which is presently maintaining approximately 65 per cent of the agrarian population of the Republic— is limited. Although the division of lands in this region is more complete than in many other areas, it is far from being well distributed with respect to the agrarian population. The percentage of the campesino population not having land is low, but the number of families not having sufficient land to meet their needs ranges from 20 to 30 per cent: Francis LeBeau, “Agricultura de Guatemala”, Integración social en Guatemala (Seminario de integración social Guatemalteca, Guatemala, 1956), pp. 275-277. Higbee believes that 7V4 acres is the minimum necessary for independent family subsistence in the central highlands, while Stadelman states that unless a village possesses at least 1.5 acres of arable land per capita, it cannot subsist on milpa agriculture—an average family of five persons requiring a minimum of 3.24 acres for subsistence. Higbee “Agricultural Regions,” p. 178, and Stadelman, “Maize Cultivation,” pp. 103, 105. Despite the growing pressure on the land, the Indian, if given the opportunity, apparently will resort to factory work only if he owns less than an acre of land. In Cantel, for example, only two factory workers owned more than an acre: Nash, Machine Age Maya, p. 23. Pressing against the traditional structure of Indian society, however, is Guatemala's rapidly increasing population. The Guatemalan population has one of the highest annual growth rates in Latin America, and even the more conservative projections estimate that the population should double between 1950-1980. Whether the traditional family attachment to the land can be preserved by the highland Indians in the face of a steep rise in population remains to be seen. For population estimates see: U.N., Dept. of Social Affairs, Population Division, The Population of Central America (including Mexico), 1950-1980, (Population Studies No. 16, New York, 1954), p. 67; ECLA, Economic Bulletin for Latin America, V (November 1960), Statistical Supplement, Table 2.

46 The thesis that any economic advance in Guatemala depends on industrialization seems to be begging the question of the Indian majority and its relation to the land in a preponderantly agrarian society. Compare: Britnell, G. E., “Problems on Economic and Social Change in Guatemala,” The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, XVII (1951), 468–481 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hoselitz, Bert F., “Economic Development in Central America,” Weltwirschaftliches Archiv, LXXVI (1956), 267–308.Google Scholar

47 Tax points out that the Indian culture has remained basically intact and is probably more extensive than in the 16th century. The Indians, moreover, have absorbed only those elements of Spanish culture which could be accommodated to their own culture. But he also argues that the Indian is not reluctant to change if he is supplied with any significant alternatives from which to choose and sees that they are to his advantage: Sol Tax, “Changing Consumption in Indian Guatemala,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, V (1957), 147-158Google ScholarPubMed. Redfield pointed out earlier that the local Indian cultures had preserved their local character despite increasing physical mobility and contact with Ladino society because the expanded relations were confined to an impersonal, conventional level: Redfield, Robert, “Primitive Merchants of Guatemala,” Quarterly Journal of Inter-American Relations, I (1939), 54.Google Scholar Cantel affords an interesting example of how the Indians have been able to retain their social integrity and cultural distinctiveness through the mechanism of adaptation, even in the presence of a large textile mill established there since 1876: Nash, Machine Age Maya, p. 20.