Open Bell Dissertation 2013.Pdf

The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

College of Earth and Material Sciences

THE GOVERNANCE OF FOOD TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL

RESOURCE FLOWS: CONNECTING MILLS, WATER, WHEAT, AND PEOPLE

IN COLONIAL LIMA, PERU (1535-1700)

A Dissertation in

Geography

by

Martha G. Bell

© 2013 Martha G. Bell

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

August 2013 The dissertation of Martha G. Bell was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Karl S. Zimmerer Professor of Geography Head of the Department of Geography Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee

Deryck W. Holdsworth Professor of Geography

Brian H. King Professor of Geography

James P. McCarthy Professor of Geography

David L. Webster Professor of Anthropology

Brent Yarnal Professor of Geography Associate Head of the Department of Geography Graduate Program Officer

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.

ii ABSTRACT

This dissertation analyzes interrelationships between technology change, environmental resource flows, and environmental resource governance as part of the broader social-ecological and landscape transformations of the Columbian Exchange period. It takes the example of the Spanish introduction of gristmill technology and related wheat/bread production and water management practices to Lima, Peru during the early colonial period (1535-1700). Mills are analyzed in a historical political ecological and landscape perspective; they are conceptualized not as isolated mechanical devices, but rather as components of extensive water management systems, far-reaching grain markets and economies, and broad social networks of resource access. They were physical sites of intersection between flows of water, grain, and people. One remarkable archival collection was the main source used to trace these flows. The Libros de Cabildos de Lima (LCL) contain the records of Lima’s city council, the Cabildo, over the course of the entire colonial period. The Cabildo was the branch of colonial government in charge of regulating gristmills, distributing water rights, and provisioning the city with grain. Consequently, the LCL include a nearly unbroken record of the Cabildo’s governance strategies for mills, water, and grain across the entire period of interest. Cabildo data was compiled, analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively, and mapped. This dissertation is divided into three major case studies on mills, water, and wheat, each one exploring a different aspect of Technology-Flows-Governance relationships. Overall, this analysis demonstrates that technology, the creation and growth of urban spaces (and their related environmental and resource flows), and the governance practices associated with these technologies and flows contributed significantly to the socio-ecological and landscape changes of the Columbian Exchange period. It argues that these features, and their change over time, are vital to fresh understandings of colonialism and environment, while the general approach can be applied in diverse geographic and historical contexts.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ...... vi List of Tables ...... ix Acknowledgements ...... x

Chapter 1. Technology, Environmental Flows, and Governance: Connecting Water, Wheat, and People in the Urban Space of Colonial Lima, Peru (1535-1700) ...... 1 Introduction and Background ...... 2 The Technology-Flows-Governance Framework, and its Application to the Historical Political Ecology of the Columbian Exchange ...... 13 Research Design ...... 35 Chapter Outlines ...... 46

Chapter 2. Technology in a Landscape Perspective: Following Flows of Water, Grain, and People through Gristmills ...... 61 Introduction ...... 62 Nature-Society-Technology Relations and the Columbian Exchange ...... 64 Molinological Research and Gristmill Analysis ...... 67 Background: Empirical Data on the Construction and Use of Lima Gristmills...... 73 “Every miller draws water to his own mill”: Interactions and Conflicts in Flows of Water through Mills ...... 82 “Safe as a thief in a mill”: Interactions and Conflicts in Flows of Grain through Mills ...... 92 “A Principal Part of the Sustenance the Republic”: Mill Governance in a Complex Colonial Society (Flows of People) ...... 98 Discussion and Conclusions ...... 109

Chapter 3. Historical Political Ecology of Water: Intersections of Water Flows, Infrastructure, and Municipal Governance ...... 139 Introduction: Historical Political Ecology, Hydraulic Archaeology, and Water Flows in Colonial Lima ...... 140 The Water Judge and the Definition of Lima‘s “Hydraulic Space”...... 147 “For the shortness of time and the lack of money”: Seasonal and Financial Cycles in Levee Projects (Case Study 1) ...... 153 “From the source of the water until it arrives to the city”: Flows of Drinking Water through the Municipal Pipeline Network (Case Study 2)...... 161 “Señor San Marcelo the city‘s patron and lawyer for the rains”: Divine Authorities, Religious Processions, and the Heavens as Part of Lima‘s Hydraulic Space (Case Study 3) ...... 173 Discussion and Conclusions...... 176

Chapter 4. The Governance of Urban Wheat Flows ...... 196 Introduction: The Governance of Environmental Resource Flows, The Columbian Exchange, and Wheat in Colonial Lima ...... 197 Background and Methods: Historical Sources on Wheat in Lima ...... 205 Phase 1: The Introduction of Wheat to Lima and the Establishment of the Cabildo‘s System of Wheat Governance (1535-1569) ...... 208

iv Phase 2: The Cabildo Supplies the City: Trips to Purchase Wheat and the Alhóndiga (1570-1622) ...... 215 Phase 3: Governance via Price Control: The geography of grain prices, and mediation between farmers, bakers, and merchants (1623-1687) ...... 220 Phase 4: The Wheat Crisis of the Late 17th Century in the Libros de Cabildos (1687-1705) ...... 225 Discussion: Space and Scale in Lima‘s Wheat Flows and Implications for Studies of Urban Environmental Resource Flows and the Columbian Exchange ...... 231 Conclusion: An Epilogue for Maria Escobar ...... 237

Chapter 5. Conclusions: Contributions of the Technology-Flows-Governance Framework in and beyond the Colonial Period ...... 252 The Technology-Flows-Governance Framework ...... 253 The Lima Case Studies and the Columbian Exchange...... 258 Mill and the Technology-Flows-Governance Framework beyond the Colonial Period...... 265

Appendix A: Sample data collection form ...... 274

Appendix B: Ethnographic survey of gristmills in Ancash, Peru (2010-2011) ...... 275

Appendix C: Water Authorities in Colonial Lima listed in the Libros de Cabildos de Lima (LCL) (1600-1699) ...... 295

Appendix D: Petitions and concessions of drinking water rights for Individuals, Groups, Religious Orders, and other institutions included in the Libros de Cabildos de Lima (LCL) (1588-1699) ...... 310

Appendix E: Trips by Cabildo representatives to buy or inspect wheat listed in the Libros de Cabildos de Lima (LCL) (1549-1700)...... 326

Appendix F: Alhóndiga officials and operation in the Libros de Cabildos de Lima (LCL) (1555-1687) ...... 334

Appendix G: Wheat and Bread Prices set by the Cabildo in the Libros de Cabildos de Lima (LCL) (1549-1700) ...... 342

Bibliography ...... 349

v List of Figures

Figure 1.1. Map of important features in Lima‘s mill, water, and wheat landscape...... 50

Figure 1.2. Aerial photos of the Rímac River, along its course between the springs at the “Atarjea” (right) and the colonial center of Lima (left). Photos from 1944, courtesy of Gilda Cogorno of the “Colonial Hydraulic Archaeology: Authorities, Infrastructure and Political Networks (Lima 1535-1796),” of the Instituto Riva-Agüero (IRA)...... 51

Figure 1.3. Photographs representing seasonal change in Rímac River flow. Top: Rímac River, from bridge (see map, Figure 1.1.), in early April 2011 (summer/wet season/high flow); Bottom: Same view, late June 2011(winter/dry season/low flow)...... 52

Figure 1.4. Important sectors of Lima society and aspects of its environment/ agriculture relevant to the case studies of mills, water, and wheat in the 16th and 17th century. The relative power of these social sectors is illustrated generally by their location in the diagram (most powerful at top). The relationships between these sectors and their relative power changed over the study period; these shifts are described in Chapters 2-4 and summarized (and diagrammed) in Chapter 5...... 53

Figure 1.5. Technology-Flows-Governance Framework...... 54

Figure 1.6 Technology-Flows-Governance Framework applied to case study of mills, water, and wheat in Colonial Lima...... 55

Figure 2.1. Basic horizontal water-wheel gristmill ...... 114

Figure 2.2. Water flow into and out of a horizontal water-wheel gristmill ...... 115

Figure 2.3. Rows of horizontal water-wheel mills...... 116

Figure 2.4. Horizontal water-wheel mills with multiple sets of stones...... 117

Figure 2.5. Interactions or conflicts related to water use...... 118

Figure 2.6. Bar graph of new mill construction showing three phases of mill construction..120

Figure 2.7. Map of Lima mill construction, Phase 1 (1540-1561). New mills are clustered along the riverbank...... 121

Figure 2.8. Map of Lima mill construction, Phase 2 (1574-1643). New mills are mainly located along the Huatica Canal...... 122

Figure 2.9. Map of Lima mill construction, Phase 3 (1670-1700). New mills are located towards the outskirts of the city center...... 123

Figure 2.10. Peruvian gristmill ...... 124

Figure 2.11. Peruvian ore-crushing mill ...... 125

vi Figure 2.12. Peruvian ore-crushing mill in landscape perspective. A gristmill would look exactly the same in landscape perspective...... 126

Figure 2.13. Multiple Peruvian ore-crushing mills along the same canal...... 127

Figure 2.14. The Santa Clara mill, an ornate early 20th century millhouse. (this was also the site of an earlier colonial mill). Top: front view of mill. Bottom: Huatica Canal, with mill(s). No date on either photo...... 128

Figure 2.15. Undated gristmill remains located on the Rímac riverbank near the Plaza Mayor and Palacio de Gobierno, in what is now the City Wall Park (Parque de la Muralla). This mill structure contains two wheelhouses, and would have powered multiple sets of stones...... 129

Figure 2.16. Diagram of mill interactions and conflicts related to water flows that required Cabildo intervention (“moments of governance”)...... 130

Figure 2.17. Mandated traffic patterns (by viceregal ordinance, 1596) for carts carrying grain and other goods into and through Lima...... 131

Figure 2.18. Diagram of grain and flour flows through Lima and points at which the Cabildo intervened in this flow (“moments of governance”)...... 132

Figure 3.1. The hydraulic space of colonial Lima and its surroundings. Includes the main irrigation canals drawn from the Rímac River, such as the Huatica and the Surco Canals... 182

Figure 3.2. Zones with levees along the Rímac River, Lima, 17th century...... 183

Figure 3.3. Connections of the two major springs “Atarjea” and “Sabana” with the municipal pipeline network and the important “Cajas de Agua” (Reservoirs/Water Tanks)...... 184

Figure 3.4. Lima Pipeline Network up to 1699. This includes the three original municipal pipelines and the additional Santa Ana pipeline (private)...... 185

Figure 3.5. Lima Pipeline Network up to 1699. This includes the three original municipal pipelines and the additional pipelines, both municipal and private...... 187

Figure 4.1. Diagram of wheat flows and Cabildo governance strategies in Phase 1: 1535-1574...... 239

Figure 4.2. Map of Trips by Cabildo Representatives to Buy or Inspect Wheat, Phase 1: 1535-1574...... 240

Figure 4.3. Diagram of wheat flows and Cabildo governance strategies in Phase 2a: 1575-1586 (top) and 2b: 1587-1622 (bottom)...... 241

Figure 4.4. Map of Trips by Cabildo Representatives to Buy or Inspect Wheat, Phase 2a: 1575-1586...... 242

vii Figure 4.5. Map of Trips by Cabildo Representatives to Buy or Inspect Wheat, Phase 2b: 1587-1622...... 243

Figure 4.6. Diagram of wheat flows and Cabildo governance strategies in Phase 3: 1623-1685...... 244

Figure 4.7. Official Cabildo Wheat Prices 1623-1687...... 245

Figure 4.8. Map of Trips by Cabildo Representatives to Buy or Inspect Wheat, Phase 3: 1623-1685 ...... 246

Figure 4.9. Official Cabildo Wheat Prices 1686-1705...... 247

Figure 4.10. Diagram of wheat flows and Cabildo governance strategies in Phase 4, during the height of the crisis period (1693-1699)...... 248

Figure 5.1. Seal of Lima‘s Republican Period Municipal Water Court (“Jusgado Privatibo de Aguas”), from the mid-1800s. This seal was stamped on documents pertaining to the water court held at the AHML (Collection: Juzgado de Aguas)...... 269

Figure 5.2. The first coat of arms of Republican Peru, used until 1825...... 270

Figure 5.3. Illustration of a gristmill from the 1939 Peru National Census...... 271

Figure 5.4. Illustration of micro-scale hydroelectric generation...... 272

Figure 5.5. The restored horizontal water-wheel gristmill at the San Juan Capistrano Mission in the San Antonio Missions National Historic Park, Texas (January 2013)...... 273

viii List of Tables

Table 1.1. Definitions of the three principal concepts: Technology, Environmental Resource Flows, and Environmental Resource Governance...... 56

Table 1.2. Definitions of related approaches informing the three principal concepts described in Table 1.1. This includes explanation of how these related approaches are used (or not used) in this dissertation, and how these approaches are compatible with the other principal concepts and related approaches. These definitions and explanations are intended to supplement and further explain the terms and concepts referred to in the main text. The approaches listed in this table are not (entirely) in the same order as they are referred to in the main text; their order here represents a logical flow for reading the table...... 57

Table 2.1. All mills in urban Lima referenced in the Libros de Cabildos de Lima (LCL), between 1540-1700...... 133

Table 3.1. Seasonality of Cabildo references to levee projects: Number of Cabildo meetings that refer to levee projects, 1600-1699, by month...... 189

Table 3.2. Distribution of Cabildo meetings with reference to levee projects, by year (1600-1699)...... 190

Table 3.3. Chronology of the construction of the three original municipal pipelines, (1588-1699)...... 191

Table 3.4. Chronology of petitions for water connections (1588-1699)...... 192

Table 3.5. Chronology of construction of private pipelines and additional municipal pipelines, and number of petitions for water connections for each (1606-1695)...... 193

Table 3.6. Petitions for and concessions of water connections, by year and category (Individual, Religious Order, Institution) (1588-1699)...... 194

Table 3.7. Seasonality of Cabildo references to San Marcelo processions (1600-1699)..... 195

Table 4.1. Population Data for Colonial Lima with estimates of wheat production in Lima‘s irrigated valleys and wheat consumption by Lima residents ...... 249

Table 4.2. 1619 bread cómputo (cómputo de pan)...... 250

Table 4.3. 1717 bread cómputo (cómputo de pan)...... 251

ix Acknowledgements

Funding for this project was generously provided by a Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Grant and a NSF Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant. Additional funding and support was provided by the European Science Foundation, the J.B. Harley Society, the Instituto Riva-Agüero, the Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. I am grateful to my advisor Karl Zimmerer who supported me at each stage of my graduate degree and through all the “real life” stuff that happened in the meantime. I am indebted to my committee members Deryck Holdsworth, Brian King, James McCarthy, and David Webster for their guidance and advice. I would also like to thank several teachers who helped me at various points in this project, including: Dan and Mary Gade, Matt Turner, Frank Salomon, Hildegardo Cordova, Karen Spalding, Nicanor Domínguez, Roger Downs, and Lee Newsom. Members of Zimmerer‘s “Lab Group” gave me valuable feedback in a relaxed setting over the years. The office staff at PSU Geography –– Kary Blaschak, Marnie Deibler, Denise Kloehr, Rosie Long, and Jess Perks –– took excellent care of me during my long periods away from State College. I also appreciate the support of Brent Yarnal in making sure everything ran smoothly. In Lima, Gabriel Ramón introduced me to the city's archives and the Libros de Cabildos. Ada Arrieta taught me paleography and gave me the document about Tupac Amaro‘s mill. Laura Gutiérrez and Melecio Tineo at the Archivo Arzobispal de Lima and Sandro Covarrubias at the Archivo Histórico de la Municipalidad de Lima provided assistance with documents at those archives. Gilda Cogorno and the staff of the Riva-Agüero Library provided access to important resources. The staff of the Archivo General de la Nacion was also very helpful. Miguel Fhon showed me (and all of my visitors) the mill remains at the Bodega y Cuadra archaeological site. Leonor Peña Chocarro, and the other teachers of the ‘Early Agricultural Remnants and Technical Heritage’ (EARTH) Summer Field School funded by the European Science Foundation and held in Proaza, Asturias (Spain) taught me a great deal about traditional Spanish agriculture and landscapes. I am thankful to Jo Lai for telling me about this remarkable program. My field and archival assistants were invaluable. Gabriel Ramón accompanied me for all of the fieldwork and I am grateful for both his encouragement and field photography. I was lucky to visit Uco with Giner Aranda and his family, especially his father Epifanio Aranda (who knows more about mills than I ever will). The successful mill survey in Pomabamba was entirely due to the skilled and enthusiastic assistance of Odolín Rodríguez. In Huinó and Pariahuanca, thanks to Benito Angeles and Francisco Flores (and their families) for opening up their homes to us. In Lima, Marcos Alarcón and Moisés Cueva lent their expertise and patience in document transcription. Thanks also to Daniel Gonzalez for showing me the mills of Huaraz. Finally, I am grateful to Paulo Raposo for assisting me with the Ancash map. Friends in both Peru and the US made grad school and research fun. I would especially like to thank Danny Baek, Matt Branch Nick Bauch, Paulina Chirif, Antonio Coello, Lindsay Conroy, Chelsea Hanchett, Jenny Kowitt, Crista Livecchi, Lisa Nett, Claudia Ochoa, José Luis Pino, Hernan Ramos, Miluska Sarmiento, Rachel Sayre, Chelsea Teale, Jenny Tennessen, and Travis Tennessen. I am indebted to all of the millers of Ancash who took the time to show me their work. Epifanio Aranda in Uco, Lino Blas in Acopalca, Mario Castillo in Pomabamba and Christian Alegre in Caraz are deserving of special recognition. Finally, thank you to my family –– Andrés, Gabriel, Elsie, Tom, Polly, Rick, Rosaleen, Elizabeth, Sherry, and Sara –– for their support.

x Dedication to Andrés Ramón for his company (b. 2012) and Karl Turekian (d. 2013) for his inspiration

xi Chapter 1

Technology, Environmental Flows, and Governance: Connecting Water, Wheat, and People in the Urban Space of Colonial Lima, Peru (1535-1700)

1 Introduction and Background

In 1494 Christopher Columbus constructed the first gristmills in the Americas

(Colón 2004, 118). They were located along the Verde River, at the Isabela settlement on

Hispaniola –– off the north coast of the present day Dominican Republic –– and

apparently functioned for only a few years before the settlement was abandoned in 1498.

However, the construction of these first gristmills was a symbolic act in several ways.

First, gristmills provide a crucial step in the processing of wheat into bread, and wheat

bread was a fundamental ingredient in Spanish cuisine (Millones Figueroa 2010).

Columbus certainly understood this: “Since the biscuit was almost gone and they had

wheat, but not flour, he decided to build some mills” (Colón 2004, 118). The gristmill

represented the introduction of Spanish or European culture (including aspects of

agriculture, food, and technology) to the New World and stands more generally as a

symbol of the Columbian Exchange (Crosby 1972).

Second, building mills implied a certain amount of landscape engineering. As

Fernando Colón, Christopher’s son, observed, “the nearest waterfall that could be used

for this purpose [milling] was a league and a half away” (Colón 2004, 118). Thus mill

construction also represented the broader landscape and environmental changes caused

by the Columbian Exchange and introduction of Spanish technology. While the word

“technology” as we refer to it now does not appear in Spanish dictionaries until the 19th

century, in Columbus’ time mills fell under the category of mechanics and engineering.1

Much of Iberian mechanics and engineering was related to water use (Turriano 1996

1 In the dictionaries included in the Real Academia Española (RAE) online database, http://ntlle.rae.es/ntlle/SrvltGUIMenuNtlle?cmd=Lema&sec=1.0.0.0.0., "tecnología" appears only in 1884. "Técnico" appears in 1802, "Machina" (machine) appears in 1734 (one of the earliest of the dictionaries published online). "Molino" (mill) is defined using the word "machina" in 1734.

2 [1576]; Reti 1967), and given this technological tradition it is certain that many of the

landscape changes observed in the New World were deliberate. Moreover the Spanish

specifically planned to reshape American landscapes for their needs, including through

the introduction of hydraulic or water-related “technologies.” In a letter dated 1493,

King Ferdinand instructed that Columbus’ second voyage include “twenty men of the

field, and one that knows how to make irrigation canals, who isn’t a Moor” (cited in:

CEHOPU 1993, epigraph). Many of the agricultural and hydraulic engineering

techniques used in the Iberian Peninsula were actually of Moorish, or Islamic origin,

including gristmills (Glick and Kirchner 2000). In this way, colonial-period landscape

changes in the New World were the result of longer-term cultural interactions in the Old

World.

Third, even given Columbus’ authority as governor, and the understood necessity

of the mill for bread production, he had to force the Spanish present at the colony to labor

in its construction, literally “stand over them” (Colón 2004, 118). Bartolomé de las

Casas, a Dominican Priest who arrived at Hispaniola in 1502 and would later become a

renowned defender of the rights of the gravely mistreated indigenous peoples of the

Americas, provided an insightful interpretation of this mill construction. He recorded

that given the desperation of the settlers’ hunger, and the reality that no one wanted to

work on the mills, Columbus’ only course of action was to use violence to coerce the

labor. To las Casas these actions planted the “seed” of hate and cruelty that was to grow

and flourish throughout Spanish government in the Americas (las Casas 1992, 86, 138).2

Thus the mill’s construction also laid bare tensions between different sectors of early

2 For a slightly divergent explanation of the same event see Thomas (2003, 131, 148) Thomas sees the conflict between Columbus and the Spanish as one of Italian technological innovation versus Spanish antiquated systems of honor.

3 colonial society, and for las Casas foreshadowed the exploitation and brutality that was to come. In addition, it demonstrated social hierarchy amongst the Spanish, and introduced some of the governance practices that later became common.

While the Isabela settlement failed, the Spanish proceeded to install gristmills at future settlements beyond Hispaniola and the Caribbean, especially in areas where it was possible to cultivate wheat or there was a reliable supply of this grain. Wherever mills were constructed they stand as material evidence of the broader technological and socio- environmental changes, including the flow of food products, that were occurring as a result of Spanish colonialism. By exploring them we can learn a great deal about how the

Spanish set up new food supply systems in their colonies, and how they modified

American landscapes in the process. My broad objective in this dissertation is, therefore, to examine the interrelationships between technology introduction, the development of water and food supply systems (conceived of as flows of food and water), and the governance and management of these technologies and flows (see discussion below,

Table 1.1).

Lima, the capital of the Peruvian viceroyalty, was one example of a settlement with gristmills. Founded in 1535, Lima quickly became one of the most important

Spanish colonial cities in the Americas, second only in importance and size to Mexico

City, the capital of New Spain. Lima, and its port Callao, served as the point of export for silver from the famous high altitude Andean mines (especially Potosí). Lima was a bustling administrative center built to Spanish specifications and was home to a constantly growing population divided between Spaniards, native Andeans (hereafter

Indians), and Africans (mainly slaves). This population numbered 14,262 in 1599, and

4 steadily increased to 25,185 by 1614, and to 37,244 by 1700 (Quiroz 2008; see also

Bromley and Barbagelata 1945 and Table 4.1). The original grid designed for Lima was

314 hectares, but the city expanded to 354 hectares by 1685.

Sixteenth-century Spaniards were familiar with at least four different kinds of gristmill that were designed to grind seed grains into flour (hand powered, wind powered, and two water powered varieties), but by far the most common of the mills introduced to

Peru, and presumably to Latin America more generally, was the horizontal water-wheel gristmill (Figure 2.1). This relatively simple mill, which has a horizontally-oriented water wheel that directly moves the millstone without making use of gearing or significant quantities of metal, was likely introduced to Spain by Muslim populations

(Glick and Kirchner 2000, 310). The first petition to build a water-powered mill was submitted to Lima’s Cabildo (city council) in 1540, and over the next 150 years more than forty additional mills of this type were referenced in Lima’s municipal and church records (see also Cobo 1935 [1639], 63). By the 1550s the technology had spread across the Andes, and it is still used in some parts of Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador (Gade 1971, 44-

45; see also Appendix B).

Lima and its surrounding region was an important wheat production zone, especially from 1540-1700, the period between the introduction of this crop and the notorious wheat “crisis” (Flores Galindo 1984). This crop supplied not only the growing capital city, but also filled the ships leaving the port and the Spanish colony at Panama, at least prior to 1570 (Ramos Pérez 1967). Wheat was mainly shipped in grain form, as flour quickly rotted in the humid American climates. This meant that the gristmills constructed in Lima ground grain on a daily basis to keep up with the needs of the local

5 population, and so mill construction and use reflected local interests, rather than those of

overseas merchants. Lima’s mills were privately owned by individuals, but were subject

to oversight at the municipal level by the Cabildo, which mainly sought to regulate their

water use and the grain that passed through them.

Lima’s wheat production, mills, and urban residents were all dependent on the

same water source: the Rímac River (Figure 1.1, 1.2). Lima was located along the banks

of this river, which flows westward cutting down from the Andes to the Pacific, like all of

Peru’s coastal rivers. The Rímac originates in the glacial lakes of the high punas, descending from a height of 5,508 m.a.s.l. to its mouth near Callao, a distance of about

130 km. Within Lima and its irrigated area the river descends a height of approximately

500 meters over a distances of nearly 35 kilometers. Its flow varies seasonally: increasing during the highland rainy season (October-April), when it often threatens to overrun its banks and flood the city, and all but drying up during the dry months (May-

September) (Figure 1.3). The Rímac was the source of the irrigation canals that supported all of the agriculture –– including the entire extent of wheat production –– in the region around the city, where rain never truly falls. During the colonial period there were twelve major or “trunk” irrigation canals, some of which also served the urban core of the city for powering mills, irrigating gardens, and sanitation. These trunk canals were likely of pre-Hispanic origin, and along with the river itself were one of the main attractions for early Spaniards in selecting a location for their capital city (see also Figure

3.1). Mills were located along the banks of the river as well as along the canals that flowed through the center of the city (See also Figures 2.7, 2.8, 2.9). The Rímac was also the source of the numerous springs that colonial Lima’s residents used for drinking water

6 (See also Figure 3.3). Seepage from the river filled the large aquifer underneath the city

(Arce 1990; Raimondi 2009 [1824]). The Spanish designed and built their linked

agricultural and hydraulic system (fields, canals, reservoirs, and pipelines) around the

natural topography as well as the pre-Hispanic canals already in existence (Figure 1.1).

This multi-purpose hydraulic system linked Lima’s urban core with its rural

surroundings, both physically and symbolically. While it grew in complexity over time,

the basic layout planned and implemented in the late 16th century remained unchanged,

and still influences the structure of Lima’s modern water system (see also Figures 3.1-

3.5).

Lima’s city council, the Cabildo, was the branch of colonial government in charge

of regulating gristmills, distributing rights to irrigation and drinking water, and

provisioning the city with grain. The linked urban, agricultural, and hydraulic landscape

introduced above was all the jurisdiction of the municipal Cabildo government. The

Cabildo was a Spanish colonial institution with roots in 13th and 14th century Castile

responsible for governing a municipality and its surrounding region (Moore 1954).

During the 16th and 17th century a Cabildo of a ciudad (metropolis) like Lima was made

up of two alcaldes hordinarios (mayors) and 12 regidores (councilmen/alderman) (ibid:

61), selected from the highest social classes of the city.3 It governed through the

establishment of ordenanzas (ordinances), which were a “loose aggregation of laws,

traditions, and special concessions rather than a single document” (ibid: 65). The

Cabildo claimed authority in Lima and its hinterland over issues such as urban planning

3 Eligibility requirements included: Spanish descent (Indians, mestizos, Africans, and mulattoes were disqualified), citizenship/residency in the city, minimum age of 26 years, and literacy. In most cases merchants, shopkeepers and tradesmen were excluded because of their "menial occupations." Usually the original settlers and large landowners of a city and their extended families/descendents occupied the prestigious Cabildo positions (Moore 1954: 82-84).

7 and land grants; trade and business; food production, supply, and distribution; water rights and infrastructure; management of natural resources (e.g., firewood, pasture); and social support (e.g., assistance for the poor, education, annual fiestas). (See also list of responsibilities in ibid: 75). It also handled enforcement of laws/ordinances by erecting its own jail and collecting fines. The Cabildo governed through nomination of commissioners and inspectors from among the alcaldes and regidores, as well as through appointment of outside specialists like engineers, architects, police officials, surveyors, measurement inspectors, and secretaries (ibid: 102-114). The Cabildo funded its projects from income derived from rents of municipal properties, taxes on specific goods, fees paid for rights granted by the Cabildo, sales of public offices, fines paid as punishment for legal infractions, and loans made by individuals.

While the Cabildo claimed great authority over the city, it actually governed through a complicated relationship with other branches of colonial government, especially the Viceroy (the Spanish monarch’s representative in Peru) and the Real

Audiencia (Royal Audience, the highest court in Peru). The monarch and his representative, the Viceroy, were technically the one who created laws and ordinances.

Yet, at the same time, the Cabildo “constantly influenced the formation of royal law”

(Moore 1954, 66, see also 75-76). In addition, when the Cabildo lacked the funds necessary for a public works project or other endeavor –– a frequent occurrence –– it appealed to the Viceroy for loans (ibid: 276). The Cabildo also had a sometimes-difficult relationship with the Church and the various religious orders present in the city, which were powerful institutions with distinct agendas that did not necessarily match that of the municipality (ibid: 221). Finally, while upon initial foundation of the city the Cabildo

8 had been a very powerful and energetic body devoted to the improvement of civic life

and municipal organization, over the course of the 17th century its prestige and power

declined, mainly due to money shortages and debt, accusations of corruption, and a

general “listlessness and lethargy” in municipal administration (ibid: 265).

The Cabildo of Lima exercised jurisdiction over the urban space, which covered a

little over one square mile, as well as the “terminos” or surroundings of the city, which

extended a radius of approximately 20 leagues (about 70 miles) around the city. A

diverse population resided within this larger territory, primarily made up of Spaniards,

Africans, and Indians. It is impossible to summarize this diversity here, although several

historians have provided analyses of aspects of Lima and its population in the 16th-17th

centuries (e.g., Bromley and Barbagelata 1945; Moore 1954; Keith 1976; Cushner 1980;

Lohmann Villena 1983; Lockhart 1994; Vergara Ormeño 1995; Charney 2001; Gutiérrez

2005; Quiroz 2008). Given my focus on gristmills (a Spanish technology) and my

analysis of the Cabildo (a Spanish governance institution) I mainly encounter and discuss

variation and differentiation within the Spanish population.4 Much of the material presented in the following chapters looks at competing, conflicting, and coordinating interests between key sectors of the Spanish society. In particular, these include the

Cabildo, the Viceroy (and Real Audiencia), the Catholic Church (and various Religious

Orders), large estate owners (Encomenderos and Hacendados), small-medium scale farmers (Chacareros), millers, bakers, large merchants, small merchants/middlemen

(Regatones), African slaves, and Indians. These different groups are illustrated, according to their relative hierarchy in Figure 1.4.

4 This is also due to the realities of the archival sources, see section below "Research Design"

9 These groups were socially distinct, yet they were not entirely discrete entities. In some cases the overlap between groups was of great significance. For example, the

Cabildo members (councilmen and mayors) or their families often owned large estates themselves (Lohmann Villena 1983, 21, 29). This caused conflicts of interest at several points, but most importantly with respect to water governance. It was decreed problematic that the Cabildo members controlled water use –– especially irrigation –– when they, their families, and peers were landowners benefitting from irrigation rights

(Chapter 3). Lack of overlap between groups was also noteworthy. No merchants, millers, bakers or other members of the “menial” professions could be city councilmen or mayors, and to a certain extent the following chapters explore the rivalries, squabbles and deal-making between these groups, especially with respect to their petitions to the

Cabildo having to do with wheat/bread pricing (Chapter 4) and milling fees (Chapter 2).

Groups and individuals less visible in the archival sources deserve mention as well. African slaves made up the majority of the labor force for milling and urban water management, while Indian workers were especially important for agricultural production, irrigation, and riverbank maintenance. I mainly focus on analysis at the level of sector or group, but sometimes the roles of specific individuals come through. For example it is clear that petitions to the Cabildo for mill rights (Chapter 2) or household drinking water connections (Chapter 3) often depend on who submits the petition. I also highlight key individuals who are either members of the Cabildo or who otherwise work for this institution (e.g., city engineers –– Chapter 3). Finally, I have represented “water” and

“wheat” in Figure 1.4 since they are key features in every example described in the

10 following chapters, and I seek to explain how their specific features influenced social- environmental change.

Considering all of these factors, and following expert scholars of European milling systems, here mills are analyzed not as isolated mechanical devices, but rather as components of extensive water management and social-technological systems, far- reaching grain markets and economies, and broad social networks of resource use and governance (Barceló 2004; Glick and Kirchner 2000). Mills were material and social sites of intersection between flows of water, grain, and people. Water flowing through canals and pipelines from natural sources to points of use, and grain flowing from fields to tables, all passed through Lima’s gristmills. Similarly, people literally passed through and around mills. Mills also represented symbolic points of convergence of diverse social groups since they connected vital flows of water and food and associated political and economic processes. In the following chapters I work to trace these flows outwards from mills, and I argue that tracing flows highlights linkages between environment, natural resources, technology, society, economics, and politics. This approach also serves to link multiple places and scalar processes (e.g., Swyngedouw 2004, 28), and to demonstrate connections between urban and rural spaces. I analyze flows spatially, as physical networks of water supply or grain distribution, but I also consider them from a more political perspective. This includes exploring the methods used to govern and control water and grain flows and interpreting patterns of water and food access. Overall,

I argue that technology is the window through which these broader issues can be viewed: through the Cabildo’s attention to construction, maintenance, and administration of mills, canals, granaries, and the like, I have been able to reconstruct how Lima’s municipal

11 government worked, how sectors of colonial society interacted, and how relationships

with the environment influenced all of the above.

My broader objective is to explore the three-part relationship between technology,

environmental resource flows, and environmental resource governance (Figure 1.5).5 I argue that analysis of technology only makes sense in conjunction with consideration for the various environmental and social flows in which the technology is situated.

Likewise, analysis of flows must include interpretation of the administrative and legal institutions and functions through which they are governed. The relationships also run in the opposite direction: Governance of technology directly affects the direction and composition of flows. This abstract framing provides my conceptual basis for each of three major case studies presented in the following chapters. In Chapter 2, I analyze mill technology to explore the relationships between water and grain governance and social relations at a sub-local and local scale. In Chapter 3, I look at the connections between water flow governance and urban social relations from the starting point of hydraulic infrastructure at a local and regional scale. And finally in Chapter 4, I examine grain flows and urban metabolism from the perspective of municipal governance strategies at a regional and imperial scale.

Based on these three case studies, I demonstrate how the Cabildo’s governance strategies depended on the development of a working institutional knowledge of Lima’s environment (especially its hydrology), agricultural potential, food supply patterns and markets, and social complexity (Figure 1.6). The Cabildo developed and applied this knowledge to balance the diverse social groups competing for profits, status, and other

5 Hereafter shorter versions of these terms are used. "Flows" and "Governance" will often be used in the text, unless otherwise specified these should be understood as shortened versions of the longer "Environmental/Natural Resource Flows" and "Environmental/Natural Resource Governance."

12 benefits within the city and to maintain its own prestige and power. Since the

municipality was the basis of Spanish colonialism (Moore 1954, 34), understanding the

management of mills, water, and wheat from the Cabildo’s perspective is crucial in

understanding the socio-environmental transformations of the colonial period.

Throughout, the many and varied relationships between technology, flows, and

governance thus form the underpinning of my approach. Before turning to the specific

case studies, I define these three principal concepts and discuss their interrelationships in

greater detail.

The Technology-Flows-Governance Framework, and its Application to the Historical Political Ecology of the Columbian Exchange

As previously mentioned, my broad goal is to develop a framework for analysis of

technology, environmental resource flows, and environmental resource governance that

can be applied within nature-society geography, and especially that can be used for

historical research within the sub-field of political ecology. To this end, I take as my

general case study the Columbian Exchange, and in so doing I apply a fresh perspective

to this area of studies. In the following pages, I examine each node of the Technology-

Flows-Governance framework (Figure 1.5). I define how I am using each of these three

principal concepts through discussion of the related approaches that inform my definitions (Tables 1.1 and 1.2). Finally, I explain how these three principal concepts may be used in conjunction –– as a coherent research framework. In the remainder of the dissertation I apply this framework to the Columbian Exchange, and particularly the introduction of Spanish milling technology and related water and wheat management practices to Colonial Peru.

13 The Role of Technology in Nature-Society Relations

Analysis of tools and technology can reveal much about nature-society relations, especially in the past. It provides physical evidence of the actions taken by humans in modifying the environment, as well as of their knowledge about how they interact with their environment. Analysis of agricultural and/or water-related technology, in particular, has been receiving renewed attention within the nature-society geography literature (and that of closely related fields) (e.g., Bebbington 2004; Kirsch and Mitchell 2004;

Swyngedouw 2004; Birkenholtz 2009; Mitchell 2009; Carey 2010; Jansen and Vellema

2011; Zimmerer 2011). However, it is important to be clear about what is meant by

“technology” as well as its significance for understanding nature-society relations. To develop a working definition of technology, I consider both new advances in the study of technology in nature-society relations in conjunction with more traditional approaches.

In the following I explain this definition and its related components.

At its most basic level, I define technology as a mediator between humans and the environment. In this most traditional or straightforward approach, the idea is that humans alter the environment, and that they use tools/technologies to do so (e.g., Marx 1976

[1867], 133-134; Mumford 1934, 10; essays in Bates et al. 1956). This idea has been recently reinvigorated by Ingold (2000) who provides useful definitions of (and distinctions between) tools, techniques, and technologies. He defines tools as “objects that extend the capacity of an agent to operate in a given environment;” techniques as skills; and technologies as corpora of “generalized, objective knowledge insofar as it is capable of practical application” (Ingold 2000, 314). In a similar vein, the Technology

14 and Agrarian Development Group at Wageningen University has been elaborating the

concept of “technography,” or ethnography of technology, which pays specific attention

to skills, tools, knowledge, techniques, and especially the “artefact-in-use” (Jansen and

Vellema 2011, 169; see also Richards 2010). In this dissertation, therefore, I define

“Technology” as a broad corpus of knowledge about how to perform activities that mediate between nature and society, meaning by which humans make use of the environment. A material object –– a tool/machine –– and its use, can therefore be understood as the sum of a wider history of technical ideas and environmental knowledge

(see also Glick 1996).

This last explanation of the wider history of technical ideas and environmental knowledge allows for the incorporation of a range of features not necessarily included in the simple “technology as mediator” definition. There are at least three other aspects of technology that inform my definition and use of the term: cultural identity and political motivation, political economy, and the debate over the agency of technology, as understood through Actor-Network Theory and the related concept of assemblage. In the following paragraphs I will elaborate each of these four topics.

First among these is the relationship between technical knowledge and cultural identity. In ethnography and anthropology, this concept is known as “technical style;” meaning that the ways a group does something or makes something –– its technical choices –– marks its identity (Lemonnier 1993). However the relationships between technical knowledge, technology adoption, and identity are not always straightforward, especially with respect to agricultural and hydraulic technologies. For example,

Bebbington (2004) examined the ways that adoption of new technologies helped Andean

15 communities in Ecuador to assert their “indigenous” identity; meanwhile in Cochabamba,

Bolivia, Perreault (2008) described the ways that “traditional” irrigation technologies

(usos y costumbres) were integrated into current political discourses. Technical style also has political and symbolic significance at multiple levels and scales. Carney (2001), in particular, used analysis of agricultural tools to demonstrate West African slave cultural- technical knowledge systems, but also to demonstrate how slaves used this knowledge to improve their situations. At the opposite end of the political/power spectrum,

Swyngedouw (1999) and Kaika (2005, 2006) have shown how individual technologies such as large dams, water supply networks, and irrigation systems have bolstered projects of “modernity” to symbolize the conquest of Nature by Man. Technology has also been used as a symbol of cultural backwardness. For instance, the reputation of Spanish technology and knowledge systems as backwards has discouraged the study of Spain’s role in the Scientific Revolution (Cañizares-Esguerra 2006, 23-26; see also Gritzner

1974). While the above-mentioned works cover many areas, together they suggest that the use of a technology implies something about the cultural and political identity of the person or group using it, it is not merely a functional solution to resource use or human- environment interaction.

The second component is derived from a Marxian analysis of technology, and considers how technology fits into a broader political economy. Obviously tools, machines, and technologies have played a significant role in the use of labor and the development and functioning of the capitalist system, especially through the role of machines in lessening labor time for the manufacture of commodities. With respect to nature-society relations, more specifically technology (as machines and as technical

16 ideas) has been used to illustrate the commodification of nature, especially in terms of capital accumulation based on the development of rights to natural resources (e.g., the development of hybrid seeds) (Marx 1976 [1867], 492; Mumford 1934, 26; Kloppenburg

2004, 10-11). Consideration of technology has also been used as a starting point or focal point from which to explain the social relations of production more broadly, especially in historical contexts. Central studies from historical materialism provide the best examples of this approach. For instance, Thompson (1971) considered gristmills in the context of grain shortages and popular protests; Bloch (1935) showed how the establishment of milling monopolies (banal rights) strengthened feudalism; and Kula (1986) demonstrated how attention to the physical aspects of grain measurement systems reveals socioeconomic relations. In this more open sense, scholars have used individual material objects as windows into political, economic, and social processes. Therefore, an important component of my definition and use of the concept of technology is how an individual technology is tied to such processes. Just as technological choice has cultural implications, so too is it impossible to separate the use of a technology from its political- economic-social context.

The third component is developed from a network or assemblage approach to technology and the examination of the agency of technology. The prior components of my definition of technology imply an intention by human actors to use tools/technologies to achieve a certain end. However, by focusing on cases where technology adoption has led to unpredictable outcomes, scholars more recently have been analyzing how technology (and nonhuman actors generally) can influence social and environmental change. Specifically, they take a network or assemblage perspective to nature-society

17 relations and directly question the agency of technology (Swyngedouw 2004; Mol and

Spaargaren 2006; Mitchell 2009; Sundberg 2011; and see discussion in Kirsch and

Mitchell 2004). This work is based primarily on Latour’s (2005) Actor-Network Theory

(ANT), and is summarized within the geographic literature by Birkenholtz (2009). In his study of the introduction of the tubewell to India in the 1960s, Birkenholtz examined the emergent relationships between technology proliferation and social, political, and ecological change. He asked how technology, because of its particular requirements, enrolls human actors in new configurations or associations, and thus how it shapes “the direction and character of socioecological change” (ibid: 120).

Rather than delve extensively into the debate over non-human agency, I highlight the concept of assemblages in the works listed above. Assemblages can be defined as dynamic and emerging relations between multiple and interconnected objects, processes, and contingencies that influence one another or work upon one another to create unique and unanticipated social-environmental outcomes (various definitions and applications of the concept in: Birkenholtz 2009; Robbins and Marks 2009; Shaw, Robbins, and Jones III

2010; Biehler and Simon 2011; Zimmerer 2011). Of particular importance here, analysis from this perspective has demonstrated how distinct and unique environmental management strategies have arisen from assemblages made up of a “multiplicity of sociocultural, political-economic, and ecological contingencies” (Shaw, Robbins, and

Jones III 2010). Given the way this concept brings together seemingly disparate elements, without a priori explanations of causality, I find it to be a useful tool for the

Technology-Flows-Governance framework I am developing here. In a sense, it provides

18 the underpinning for a more empirical and inclusive approach to understanding the relationships between these three principal concepts.

Environmental Resource Flows, Urban Metabolism, and Urban Political Ecology

I use the concept of environmental or resource flows to connect technology to both biophysical and social processes. Specifically, I refer to physical “flows” of energy, water, food, raw materials, wastes, and capital, that move into and out of a technology

(actually and metaphorically) and serve to connect the technology to the wider landscape, which is both natural and cultural. Looking at flows from a network or assemblage perspective, a technology/object can be “perceived in terms of a connection made to a range of networks that provide the sets of material flows –– water, energy, waste services, information, and so on” (Mol and Spaargaren 2006, 47; referencing ideas outlined by Urry 2003). I use the concept of flows, therefore, to visualize the diverse components of technology (as defined above) in relation to real landscapes and specific landscape features (e.g., canals).

Entire cities can also be interpreted from this perspective, as networks or assemblages of flows (Gandy 2004; see also Swyngedouw 2006; Bridge 2001). This environmental resource flows approach to urban spaces demonstrates that cities are not unnatural, isolated entities; rather they are closely integrated into their surrounding environments. Urban spaces are thus often defined in terms of “metabolism,” conceived of as both a material and social metaphor whereby supplies and materials flow into a city and are transformed into other things, such as manufactured goods, wastes, and/or wealth.

While this metaphor, especially combined with the term “circulation,” has a rich and

19 complex intellectual history,6 I find it useful here because it highlights the interwoven social and environmental processes that make up the city and that link the urban landscape to its surroundings, both near and far.

However, the metabolism metaphor has been critiqued for being overly functional

(Gandy 2004), and for obscuring questions of politics, power, and inequality

(Swyngedouw 2006). While it is helpful to explain cities as confluences or assemblages of flows, it is necessary to remember that urban spaces –– and thus the confluences or assemblages –– are also contested natural-social processes. Cities are always dynamic places where “particular socio-environmental urban conditions are made and remade”

(Heynen, Kaika, and Swyngedouw 2006, 2). Research in the area of Urban Political

Ecology seeks to address this situation, and provides a crucial component to the analysis of environmental resources flows and urban metabolism (Swyngedouw 2006). Urban political ecology analyzes urban nature and urban environmental resource flows by paying attention to the creation and contestation of potentially “oppressive socio- ecological processes” (Heynen, Kaika, and Swyngedouw 2006, 3), and to the “the regulation of our relationships with nature in cities... [and the]...democracy, governance, and politics of everyday life in cities” (Keil 2003, 729). Overall, it highlights the fact that urban environmental flows and metabolic circulation negatively affect some groups while benefiting others, and that they are never “socially or ecologically neutral” (Swyngedouw

6 Various authors trace the history and development of the metabolism metaphor, especially with respect to its relation to circulation (e.g. Gandy 2004, Swyngedouw 2006). In brief, these authors explain how the metaphors of metabolism and circulation have been transferred from their original biological usages in order to explain social-environmental change and urbanization/urban contexts. [metabolism: "material exchanges between organisms and the environment as well as the bio-physical processes within living (and non-living, i.e. decaying) entities" (Swyngedouw 2006, 107); circulation: of blood through the body; metabolic circulation: "of chemical substances and organic matter... would form the basis of modern ecology" (ibid,110)] .

20 2006, 118).7 In addition, it is unlikely that flows ever run smoothly, rather they are likely

to experience “friction” or interruptions, stoppages, and obstacles (Tsing 2005). These

frictions only further serve to benefit some groups over others. Such a political-

ecological perspective on urban environmental resource flows also helps deal with some

of the critiques made to assemblage theory (Refer to Table 1.2). If we see cities as

assemblages of diverse flows, then attention to the politics of these flows, and the

potential inequalities they create is crucial.

Here, I focus on research questions that require the combined use of the three

approaches outlined above –– environmental resource flows, urban metabolism, and

urban political ecology –– through attention to both the spatiality/materiality of flows, as

well as their politics. To understand the spatial and material composition of flows, I

consider basic research questions that include: Where do flows of water, food, energy,

etc. originate? What are the paths they follow to arrive to consumers? And, what are

wastes and where do they end up? I complement these first level questions with analysis

of the political composition of the flows, by asking second level questions such as: Who

decides about environmental flows? Who benefits from them? Who pays for them?

And, who suffers and who gains from them? (Swyngedouw 2006). Moreover, since the

ways flows are managed, governed, and controlled also contribute significantly to their

spatial form, I pay attention to the governance of flows (Spaargaren, Mol, and

Bruyninckx 2006, 8; Bridge 2001, and see following section on Environmental Resource

7 Interestingly, from very early on in the application of the concept of metabolism (in biology) comes the idea of "metabolic rift" (from von Liebig in the 19th century) to refer to the separation of production and consumption through long distance trade, and the negative affect this separation has upon agricultural lands, given that nutrients are transferred to the city as food, but wastes (sewage, etc.) are not usually returned to the fields (Swyngedouw 2006, 107). This idea was incorporated by Marx and more recent Marxist scholars when thinking about society's relationship with nature under capitalism (Foster 1999; Moore 2000; Clark and Foster 2009).

21 Governance). Given this range of issues, studies of environmental resource flows are most effective when they combine insights from urban metabolism, urban political ecology, and environmental governance research. My dissertation looks at these thematic areas and approaches simultaneously: I ask how political-economic forces and governance strategies contribute to the spatial form(s) of urban food and water flows

(supply systems). Moreover, I argue that analysis of technology provides one window from which to view these forces, strategies and flows.

As a last note, conceptual approaches that incorporate flows have also been undertaken in urban environmental history. A type of flows analysis, albeit without the use of this term per se, was pioneered by Cronon (1991) in his study of the relationships between Chicago’s markets and the development of its rural hinterland in the 19th century, especially in the context of the development of railroad technology. Since this landmark work, the idea of flows has been used in a variety of urban and historical contexts; one central theme of this work has been how resources are drawn from an ever- widening hinterland to supply the city as it develops over time (Schott 2004). For example, Gandy (2003) has explored the many facets of urban nature in New York City, including the development of its urban water system that directs flows of water from an enormous catchment area through complex infrastructure representing an equally large investment. Not surprisingly, both of these works place technology in a central position in their analyses. Drawing on these two major works, I find that the Columbian

Exchange makes for another particularly interesting historical context in which to analyze urban environmental resource flows. At the global scale, this period saw the foundation of a new world system of trade and commodity flows (Moore 2000; Dalby 2004; see also

22 Spaargaren, Mol, and Bruyninckx 2006, 21-22). At a more local scale (the level of individual colonies) this period saw the establishment of new cities, along with their unique food and water systems (flows and metabolisms), socio-spatial patterns of production and consumption (political ecology), and environmental and resource governance strategies.

Environmental Resource Governance

The governance of environmental resources forms the third corner of the

Technology-Flows-Governance framework. To reiterate a point made above, “some of the most pressing questions with respect to flows, and especially regarding environmental flows, are related to their management, governance, and control” (Spaargaren, Mol, and

Bruyninckx 2006, 8). In other words, without considering such governance (as well as such management and control), it would be impossible to understand environmental resource flows; this governance is part of what “guides” flows (ibid: 6), and determines their direction and magnitude.

Recent literature on environmental governance informs my use of this concept.

“Environmental Governance” has gained currency over the past few years as a more accurate label for the perceived shift from strictly state-led government to a broader more open form of governance under globalization and the rise of neoliberalism. Studies of this more open governance incorporate a wide range of state, market, and civil society actors, and typically examine the historical-geographic-economic context of the past several decades (Liverman 2004; Bridge and Perreault 2009; Lemos and Agrawal 2006).

Environmental governance literature critically analyzes the roles of these diverse actors,

23 looking at issues such as the decline of the state, global environmental problems, and

international agreements and regimes (Bridge and Perreault 2009; Spaargaren, Mol, and

Bruyninckx 2006).

Here, however, I use the term “environmental governance” in a very different

historical-geographic-economic context: the early colonial period.8 Thus I define the

concept in its more general sense, as “a tool for examining the complex and multi-scalar

institutional arrangements, social practices and actors engaged in environmental decision

making” (Bridge and Perreault 2009, 491). In my case studies, these actors include the

state (here primarily the colonial municipal government of Lima) but also diverse

members of the community, including both individuals and organized groups (Figure

1.4). I recognize that the political-economic relationships between these institutions,

individuals, and groups are crucial to governance strategies and outcomes and I pay

special attention to how political authority over environmental decision making operates

at multiple levels and across different spatial scales (Lemos and Agrawal 2006; Bridge

and Perreault 2009).9 In the following, I provide a brief discussion of what I mean by this definition, especially how I am using the concepts of levels, scales, institutions, and actors.

8 I find the term "governance" especially useful because its more open approach to the actors involved in environmental decision-making suits the vast differences in state and municipal government between our current historical-geographic context and that which I am investigating here. This more open approach helps to prevent assumptions from being made about how the colonial period government functioned. From the opposite perspective, as "hybrid environmental governance strategies" are recognized nowadays as being more common (Lemos and Agrawal 2006), it is especially important that we identify instances where similar hybrids or relationships existed in the past. 9 This application works at the intersection of two of the main approaches within the Environmental Governance literature as defined by Bridge and Perreault (2009, 478): "Governance as a problematic of scale" and "Governance as commodity chain co-ordination." It seeks to show how the spatial scale of resource use was contested among the various decision-makers due to the significance of this resource use for the production of agricultural commodities (mainly wheat grown on irrigated land) and the broader political-economy (See especially discussion of scale and governance in wheat commodity chains, or flows, in Chapter 4).

24 My use of the concept environmental resource governance considers decision- making at multiple levels. This means that I analyze issues related to the broadest, most general level (the categories of decision-makers and the determination of the bodies responsible for decision-making) and to the most specific level (the actual decisions that were made, which I generally refer to as government, administration and/or management). Likewise, I am interested in the multiple spatial scales of governance or decision-making. Beyond simple identification of the scale at which decisions are made

(urban, regional, watershed, etc.), I am concerned with the politics of this scale. By this I mean that I analyze how the scale at which a decision about the use of an environmental resource was defined, including the contestations and politics that resulted in this definition (Bridge and Perreault 2009, 485). I show how different decision makers and stakeholders in the decision-making manipulated the scale of resource governance to advance their own goals (McCarthy 2005; Reed and Bruyneel 2010). For example, in

Chapter 2, I demonstrate how the two major branches of governance (the Cabildo and the

Viceroy) argued about the scale at which water was administrated, with each branch seeking to benefit itself at the expense of the other.

To address these issues of multiple levels and scale, here I apply basic-sounding, yet important questions that include: Who is doing the governing? At what level (state, international, city, other) does governance (decision-making) occur? What is the biophysical process, environmental issue, or resource use being governed? What is its spatial extent and what is the scale at which it is managed? And, in what ways do power relations and politics control how these scales are defined? While much environmental governance work is concerned with the transformation and reconstitution of these levels

25 and scales in the current context of globalization, by no means is this the only historical period that witnessed important shifts in how levels and scales of governance were defined and contested.

The diverse institutions and actors involved in decision-making also warrant attention. Who is it that makes decisions about environmental or natural resource governance? How does this change over time, and whose voices are heard (and whose are silenced)? Regardless of the various assertions of the perceived decline of the state and/or shift from government to governance under the current neoliberal regime, most scholars have found that the state continues to be a primary institution involved in environmental governance (Liverman 2004). Specifically they identify how the state facilitates access to land and other resources (e.g. minerals, water, petroleum) (Bridge

2000, 2008); protects property rights (especially private property) (McCarthy and

Prudham 2004); supports “particular regimes of accumulation” (Bridge and Perreault

2009, 482), and consequently directly and indirectly perpetuates inequality. Therefore, based on the above, I identify key questions: What is the body (state or other) that facilitates rights to resources and/or private property rights, and how does it do so? How are these rights protected and/or enforced? What is the role of the state (or other body) in creating and legitimating a social order based on conceptions of rights to property, resources, and the pursuit of wealth? Overall, these kinds of questions help incorporate understandings of political and economic power into analysis of environmental resource decision-making (Bridge and Perreault 2009).10

10 The questions included in the discussion of the principle concepts Technology, Flows and Governance should be taken as (hypothetical) illustrations of my definition and application of these concepts and research perspectives. The specific research questions that I investigate in this dissertation are listed in the section on Research Design (p. 32).

26 Therefore, in the following chapters, I examine the levels, scales, institutions, and actors implicated in the governance of various components of Lima’s mill, water, and wheat system. I show how the (successful) governance and management of urban water and food flows meant attention to multiple scales simultaneously: neighborhood (sub- local), urban (local), hinterland (regional), and Viceroyalty (colonial/imperial). I also show how this was the result of (and led to) conflicts and cooperation between different levels of colonial government (and the institutions related to these levels) (e.g., Cabildo,

Viceroy, King, Church), as well as between different sectors of colonial society (e.g., landowners, farmers, bakers, millers, merchants and more). (Refer to Figure 1.4). I use technologies –– especially mills –– as points of connections between these scales, levels, actors, and institutions.

I focus this broad analysis on what I am calling “moments of governance.” These are specific points where the governing body intervenes in the flow of a resource to regulate this flow. These points may include (but are certainly not limited to) issuing of permits or licenses, implementing or enforcing ordinances, settling disputes, or dealing with quotidian issues of infrastructure maintenance. These moments of governance serve to highlight the relationships between environmental resource flows and environmental resource governance practices, and often a technology provides the focus of the intervention. In the following chapters I will elaborate this definition through its application to moments of governance related to milling, water use, and grain supply.

Finally, from a more pragmatic perspective, historical research of environmental flows would be impossible without consideration of governance, if only for the reason that the available archival sources on “flows” usually pertain to legal and administrative

27 aspects of resource use. In this vein, the sub-area of legal geographies, especially related to water use, access, and rights is useful. Research in this area helps to demonstrate how the practical work of governing (protecting/enforcing rights, access, and decisions) is carried out, and the many different actors and institutions implicated in this work (e.g.,

Jepson 2012; Lane 2011). Legal and administrative documents proved crucial to my analysis of Lima’s mills, water, and wheat; they are discussed below (See section below on “Research Design”).

Applying the Technology-Flows-Governance Framework: The Columbian Exchange from a Historical Political Ecology Perspective

My overarching goal is to apply the Technology-Flows-Governance analytic framework outlined above to a historical context, and in particular to the general case study of the Columbian Exchange. While the above discussion alluded to historical approaches within the Technology-Flows-Governance framework, recent work in the growing area of Historical Political Ecology also informs my research design. Historical political ecology calls for the application of historical perspectives within a broadly defined political ecology point of view (Offen 2004). This includes using historical material to better understand current environmental conflicts, especially the continuing influences of European expansion and colonialism (Brannstrom 2004; Davis 2009; Offen

2011). It also includes asking questions related to environmental change or resource use in historical periods, either recent (Swyngedouw 1999; Biehler 2009; Carey 2010; Lane

2011; Carey, French, and O’Brien 2012) or more distant (Watts 1983; Sluyter 1999;

Zimmerer 2000; Carney 2001; Davis 2004; Endfield and Fernández Tejedo 2006; Davis

28 2007; Endfield 2008).11 It is strongly influenced by historical approaches within the related fields of nature-society geography, cultural/human ecology, and environmental history (See Table 1.2 for specific points of comparison). Already several geographers have applied a political ecological perspective to analysis of the Columbian Exchange and the Colonial Period (e.g., Carney 2001; Carney and Rosomoff 2009; Sluyter 1999,

2002; see also Zimmerer and Bassett 2003, 13-16), yet this topic remains ripe for further investigation given the sweeping environmental changes, rapidly developing colonial power structures, and long-term socio-environmental consequences of this period.

My basic approach is, therefore, to apply major research questions derived from political ecology to the particular case study of the introduction of Spanish food and water systems to Colonial Peru as part of the Columbian Exchange. At the most general level three such questions typical of political ecological research are of special relevance:

1) How do power dynamics influence social and spatial patterns of natural resource access and control? (Ribot and Peluso 2003; Turner 2009; McCarthy 2002); 2) How do the institutions, regulations and governance structures that control these resources develop? Especially, how do they develop in situations with multiple and potentially divergent environmental knowledge systems? (Turner 2009; McCarthy 2002; Scott

1998); and 3) How do ecological relations influence these patterns of resource use

(Turner 2009; Zimmerer and Bassett 2003)?12

These general questions are applicable to both analysis of water use and food

11 A broadly defined political ecological framework has also been applied by archaeologists in the investigation of human-environmental interactions in prehistoric periods, especially with respect to the political economy of food production and social dimensions of environmental change (e.g., Webster 2005; Erickson 2006; Yaeger and Hodel 2008). 12 Here, ecological relations are approached through analysis of natural resource access, specifically by considering how resources were extracted/accessed/used (Turner 2009, 192).

29 production and consumption, however recent political ecological research on water and food inspires more specific topics and questions warranting further investigation. In the area of political ecology of water, several important themes related to urban water use and governance may be identified. These include: inequality of access (Swyngedouw

2004; Bakker 2011; Loftus 2011); the privatization of water resources (Loftus and

McDonald 2001; Swyngedouw 2005; Spronk 2010; Bakker 2011); the politics of surface water or aquifer management (Swyngedouw 1999; Norman and Bakker 2008; Brooks and Linton 2011; Jepson 2012); urban development and urban-rural relations

(Swyngedouw 1997, 2004; Bakker 2003; Kaika 2005; Scott and Pablos 2011; Jepson

2012); and social, ecological, political and economic relations/assemblages more generally (Swyngedouw 2004; Linton 2010; see also Zimmerer 2000). Work on the political ecology of agriculture and food production has highlighted similar topics of interest related to access to land and other resources, political economy, commodity chains, and environmental transformations (e.g., Watts 1983; Grossman 1993; Bryant and

Goodman 2004; Le Heron 2009). All of the topics and themes listed above are relevant to the study of colonial Lima’s mills, water, and wheat.

Addressing questions from political ecology in historical contexts –– the

Columbian Exchange or otherwise –– requires adjusting the methods typically used in analysis of current day issues, especially as more distant periods are considered. The experience of cultural/historical ecologists who study past land-use practices, field types, and food production methods is useful in developing such a mixed-methods approach

(Parsons and Denevan 1967; Denevan 2001; Doolittle 2000; Butzer 2005; Balée and

Erickson 2006). Triangulation of data from archaeology, paleoenvironmental

30 reconstruction, ethnography, archival investigation, and agricultural experimentation is often required (Balée and Erickson 2006, 7). However, even while studying similar topics and employing similar methods, historical political ecology goes beyond the interests of cultural ecology in significant ways. Doing historical political ecology requires reconstructing physical landscape changes of the past, but also interpreting the social, political, and economic significance of these changes. Overall, this historical political ecology perspective –– both research questions and methodology –– informs this dissertation’s general case study of the Columbian Exchange, as well as its specific analysis of mills, water, and wheat in colonial Lima.

The “Columbian Exchange” is traditionally understood as the inter-continental transfers of biological entities –– especially plants, animals and diseases –– initiated by

Columbus’ voyages in the 15th century (Crosby 1972). This environmental approach to colonial history has been of continuing interest to geographers, historians, and archaeologists since the 1970s (e.g., on plants and disease see Crosby 1972; on plants and indigenous response see Gade 1992; on livestock see Vassberg 1978; Butzer 1988;

Melville 1994; on indigenous response see Newsom and Trieu Gahr 2011; on the African contribution see Carney 2001; Carney and Rosomoff 2009). Several recent studies by geographers, especially Carney (2001), Carney and Rosomoff (2009), and Sluyter (1999,

2002), have advanced the literature on the Columbian Exchange in significant ways.

Specifically, they have incorporated analysis of technology and landscape into studies more typically centered on analysis of biological entities, like seeds, animals and diseases. This dissertation follows their lead, applying the Technology-Flows-

Governance framework to look at technology and landscape, as well as governance and

31 urban development in the Columbian Exchange period. It argues that in order to

understand the full effects of the biological transfers and environmental changes of this

period, it is necessary to contextualize them with respect to landscape, food production

and resource use systems, economies, politics, and society.

Several surveys of the environmental and agropastoral transformations of the

Columbian Exchange/Spanish Colonialism in the Andean region have been completed

(Cogorno 2005; Gade 1992; Knapp 2007). While Pizarro’s arrival on the Peruvian coast

in 1532 is the historical pivot for these studies, these authors demonstrate that the

introduction of European land use practices is not a simple tale of before and after.

Rather, the period following the encounter is better conceptualized as an amalgam of two

highly developed agropastoral systems; each with its own internal diversity, including

complex histories of technological development, cultural exchange, and accumulation of

symbolic meaning. In fact, some argue that the environmental effects of the encounter

were not fully realized until the 1800s (Knapp 2007).

On the Spanish side, the Iberian explorers and immigrants brought the plants,

animals, tools, and technologies they considered necessary to sustain their populations

and supply their ships.13 Wheat and grapes were among the most prominent of the plants, but more than 100 different species and varieties were introduced to the Americas overall

(estimates based on Acosta 2002 [1590], 226-231; Dunmire 2004, 126-130; Newsom and

Trieu Gahr 2011, 559-562). These represented a crop portfolio developed from the interactions of Christians and Muslims on the Iberian Peninsula over centuries. For

13 For simplicity, I consider the various Spanish kingdoms jointly. But, there were significant differences between traditions in Castile, Aragon (including Catalonia, Valencia), and Granada. These represented different climates and environments, as well as different cultural interactions (Thomas 2003; Glick and Martínez 2006; Vassberg 1996). See also note #14.

32 instance, many of the grain varieties and citrus crops so much a part of the “Spanish”

world, were actually earlier introductions from the East, by way of Muslim conquerors

(Watson 1983). Additionally, while notorious for being “rustic” pig herders (Vassberg

1978), the 16th century Iberians were also the inheritors and practitioners of highly

advanced water management technologies, also of Muslim origin (Turriano 1996 [1576],

260).14 Along with the plants, animals, and tools, came varied institutions (governance, legal, and common practice) controlling food production and markets. The Spanish also imported African slaves to Peru as early as the 16th century: some accounts indicate rice was brought to Peru even before wheat (Cobo 1956 [1653], 406-407), which is a good indicator of African presence (Carney 2001; 2004). In Lima specifically, Africans became the main laborers used for construction and maintenance of the municipal water system. Far from a simple package, the Spanish brought a messy combination of agricultural, pastoral, and other land use practices and knowledge to their South

American territories.

Meanwhile, the Peruvian or Andean world was at least as dynamic. The Inca

Empire (ca. 1400-1530s) was only the most recent of a series of states and cultures that

had shaped the region. Agriculturally, the Andes possessed a rich history of crop

domestication, and had particularly advanced knowledge of irrigation and soil

management (Kosok 1965; Knapp 1992, 2007; Gade 1992; Sherbondy 1994; Treacy

1994; Denevan 2001; Zimmerer 2000). Interactions between indigenous and European

14 Juanelo Turriano is the credited author of “The Twenty-One Books of Engineering and Machines of Juanelo Turriano,” a set of volumes that describes in detail the hydraulic knowledge of 16th century Spain: from the origins of water, to basic canal layout, to complicated dam, weir, mill and bridge construction. Turriano was almost certainly Aragonese (García-Diego 1998, 59), and thus the knowledge he recorded was probably more common in Aragon than it was in Castile, where most immigrants to Peru originated (Gade 1992, 462).

33 practices were unavoidable and took many forms. Most relevant here is that Lima was built with reference to pre-colonial settlements, fields, and canals—some ancient, others perhaps still in use at the time of the Spanish conquest (Cobo 1935 [1639], 62; Cogorno

2005, 54-55, 61). Andean people performed most of the agricultural work and were required to cultivate European crops for tribute. They adopted the introduced plants, animals, and tools for their own use unevenly, only accepting those that fit into previously established production zones and cultural tastes (Gade 1992). In some cases,

European crops appear to have been spread by Andean trade networks independently of

Spanish occupation (Capparelli 2005). In others, the Spanish purposefully damaged indigenous irrigation canals, to destroy crops and appropriate land (Rostworowski 1999,

21).

Overall, the landscape transformations of the colonial period were varied, and depended upon geographically specific interactions between Spanish and Indian practices. They were not always the result of direct Spanish assault on Indian practices, but neither were they a peaceful cultural syncretism. This complex and dynamic situation provides the context for my application of the Technology-Flows-Governance framework developed above. Specifically, I take a closer look at the food and water systems established in the new Spanish city of Lima. I start by analyzing the introduction of one technology –– the gristmill –– and the flows of water, wheat, and people that moved through this technology. However, I place these flows (and their governance) in a broader context, considering wider systems of water infrastructure and management, and far-reaching strategies for grain provisioning and regulation. I also examine change over

34 time in these flows and their governance, considering how the Cabildo developed and

refined a working institutional knowledge over a period of more than 150 years.

Research Design

Questions and Approaches

The Technology-Flows-Governance approach outlined above entails analyzing material culture (technology), to understand nature-society relationships (flows and governance). It links environmental change, food production, water use, markets, class/race relations, and politics within a colonial context. Therefore, based on the insights, topics and questions discussed in the previous pages, I ask a single broad research question: How did the use of introduced Spanish technologies (especially gristmills) lead to new nature-society interactions and land use practices in Colonial

Lima, Peru? I break this question into a series of sub-questions: a) What were the

Spanish technologies and land use practices that were introduced? b) How did the use of these technologies influence the spatial/material and social/political composition of food and water flows within a complex colonial society? And, c) How did the institutions, regulations, and governance structures that control these food and water flows develop and change over time?

To address these sub-questions, I analyze mills in a landscape or spatial perspective, incorporating study of the larger scale resource use practices and productive activities developed in Lima under Spanish colonialism. I begin by focusing on the mills themselves, but quickly move outwards from this single object to ask how mill construction and use interacted with natural hydrologic processes, as well as how it was

35 incorporated into and interacted with the organization of land use and environmental resource flows (e.g., irrigation, wheat cultivation), and the governance of this land use and flows (e.g., determination of decision-makers, administration of water rights, regulation of grain trade and bread production). I divide this dissertation into three major case studies on mills, water, and wheat (Chapters 2-4), and use each case study to explore a different aspect of the Technology-Flows-Governance relationship.

Throughout, I apply a two-stage methodology. The first stage deals with reconstruction. For each of the three case studies/chapters (mills, water, and wheat) this meant something slightly different; however, the general idea was to use historical documents to reconstruct what was happening where, and when. For instance, mill building and use in Lima between 1540-1700 was reconstructed by creating a database of when, where, and by whom mills were built. Water use was reconstructed by compiling data on what water management practices were being used, and where, when, and by whom they were used. Wheat production, consumption, and trade were reconstructed by bringing together information on where wheat was produced, when, and by whom.

Similar questions related to grain trade and bread production were also asked.

The second stage was analysis. The spatial and chronological information reconstructed from historical documents was analyzed according to technology, flows, and governance. Again, each chapter approached this from a distinct angle, but the general idea was to use reconstruction of milling technology, the spatial and political composition of water and wheat flows, and the governance of both technology and flows, to analyze the relationships between different sectors of colonial Lima society. For

Chapter 2 (mill case study), analytical methods included focusing on the technology in

36 question –– in this case mills –– and identifying and interpreting the social and

environmental interactions or conflicts that resulted from the flows of water, wheat, and

people through mills. This allowed for interpretation and discussion of the place of mills

in colonial society, with specific focus on the relationships between millers, farmers,

bakers, the Cabildo, and the Church. For Chapter 3 (water flows case study), analytical methods including focusing on how water in its various forms flowed through Lima’s urban and rural spaces, and interpreting the social and environmental interactions and conflicts that resulted from the administration and regulation of access to (and also protection from) these water flows. This allowed for recognition of uneven patterns of access to water within the city [“archipelagos” Bakker (2003)]. Finally, for Chapter 4

(governance of wheat flows case study), analytical methods included focusing on the governance strategies employed by the Cabildo in order to ensure a stable supply of wheat into Lima, and how these strategies changed over time. This showed how the

Cabildo tried to mediate between rival sectors of Lima society, including estate owners, farmers, merchants, millers, bakers, and bread consumers. While this two-stage methodology may seem obvious, it is important to be clear about how historical data was used to form the interpretations and conclusions included in the following chapters.

This two-stage methodology is inspired by work in historical political ecology.

As stated above, doing historical political ecology requires both the reconstruction of

historical landscape changes, but also the interpretation or analysis of the social, political,

and economic significance of these changes. A practical guide for this kind of research

project can be found in the multi-disciplinary research area called Hydraulic

Archaeology. The basic objectives of Hydraulic Archaeology are: “to reconstruct the

37 original design of the hydraulic system and, in doing so, identify the changes or accretions that it might have undergone” (Glick and Kirchner 2000:276). This reconstruction is then used to explain agricultural organization and social/political relations (ibid). Hydraulic archaeologists analyze a variety of features (e.g., site- selection, canal layout, placement of mills and other structures) using a range of data sources (e.g., archaeological survey, historical documents, legal traditions, toponyms, and remotely sensed imagery). From technological, stylistic and chronologic aspects of the hydraulic system they identify the social groups participating in the construction of the system and determine the relative political and demographic strengths of these groups, as demonstrated by their ability to access water resources (for examples of work in this field see Glick 1972, 2005; Cresswell 1983; Barceló and Kirchner 1988; Kirchner and Navarro

1996; Squatriti 1998; Glick and Kirchner 2000; Barceló 2004). While Hydraulic

Archaeology focuses on water infrastructure and technology, a similar approach could be applied to agricultural production, and food trade, transport, and processing.

Archival Sources and Data Collection

The main historical source used in this project was the Libros de Cabildos de

Lima (the books of the city council of Lima, hereafter LCL). These books, which record the minutes from the weekly or biweekly meetings of Lima’s Cabildo, span almost the entire colonial period, from the city’s foundation in 1535 to after Peru’s independence in

1821. They include forty-five volumes covering 1535-1824. The first twenty-three volumes, 1534-1639, were transcribed and published (Lee and Bromley 1935-1964

[1534-1637]); the remaining volumes are held as hand-written manuscripts at the

38 Historical Archive of the Municipality of Lima (AHML).15 Since the Cabildo was the

branch of colonial government officially in charge of food and water provisioning and

administration in Lima and its surroundings, it frequently discussed topics related to

mills, water, and wheat in its regular meetings. The incredible combination of continuity

and comprehensiveness of the LCL makes them unique, no other archival source provides

such a regular, long-term record of the topics necessary to answer the research questions

posed above.

Analysis of both published and manuscript volumes of the LCL followed the same

methodology. Each Cabildo meeting between the years 1535-1705 (vols. 1-33) was

examined, and any proceeding related to gristmills, wheat, or water was copied on a form

prepared for this purpose. (Appendix A: Sample Form). Proceedings ranged from one

sentence to several folio pages, but the average length of a Cabildo entry on these topics

was about one or two paragraphs. From the period in question, over 1600 proceedings

were recorded, resulting in several binders-full of forms. This data collection

methodology was based on two prior historical projects. The first was the comprehensive

archival research carried out by Georgina Endfield, Isabel Fernéndez Tejedo, and Sarah

O’Hara in their study of drought, grain supply, and food/water scarcity in Colonial

Chihuahua (Endfield, Fernández Tejedo, and O’Hara 2004a, 2004b; Fernández Tejedo,

Endfield, and O’Hara 2004; Endfield and Fernández Tejedo 2006; Endfield 2007, 2008).

In corresponding archives in Mexico, this team went through document collections

(ramos) chronologically, from the early colonial period to independence. These

collections pertained to various themes, including: land, land grants, indigenous affairs,

15 Book #2, referring to 1540-1544, has been missing since the 16th century, and probably was purposefully destroyed as a consequence of power struggles in the early colonial period [although Cobo (1935 [1639]) refers to Cabildo documents from this period].

39 rivers and canals, tax records, public granaries, and more. Similarly, they were able to

compile a chronological series of references to these diverse themes, given their

comprehensive review of the collections. The second source was the volume on 16th

century Lima edited by Laura Gutiérrez (2005), which analyzed the 16th century LCL for

various themes related to public life. This volume is made up of thematic chapters

written by diverse authors, each applying a slightly different set of methods. However,

the general approach of all authors –– to analyze Cabildo documents for specific topics –

– was copied here.

As with any archival research, it is necessary to pay critical attention to what the

Cabildo documents reveal, why they contain the information they do, and what kinds of

information they do not or would not include. The LCL provide a nearly complete record

of the actions taken by the Cabildo throughout the colonial period. This includes many

topics relevant to municipal governance, as described above, making the LCL a

phenomenal source for understanding the issues important to the municipal government,

the strategies the Cabildo applied, and how these changed over the course of the colonial

period. The LCL do not describe matters that fell outside of the Cabildo’s authority.

Therefore, this source is virtually silent on topics dealing with territory beyond Lima’s jurisdiction (“terminos:” a legally defined circular zone with a radius of 20 leagues, or 70 miles, around the city). They also do not include much information on non-Spanish populations, and so Indian and African issues are rarely mentioned. Finally, while the

Cabildo records sometime include discussion and debate among the councilmen and mayors, the LCL are really a “final draft” of the written minutes of meetings that were complete. Therefore they do not provide much information about dissention or

40 disagreement among members of this governance institution. Likewise very little can be

learned about the overall effectiveness of the Cabildo’s policies or the public’s

understanding and opinion about the municipal government.

To complement the Cabildo documents, additional relevant documents were

selected from other archives, including the Archive of the Archbishopric of Lima (AAL)

and the National Archive of Peru (AGN).16 All 16th and 17th century documents pertaining to mills (referenced in the catalogs) were analyzed at both the AAL and the

AGN. Likewise, nearly all of the water-themed documents from this time period at the

AGN were read (Collection: Juzgado de Aguas), although reading all water related documents at the AAL was not possible. Unfortunately, little information related to wheat was collected at either archive. These additional documents supplied details supplementing the LCL data. The AAL provided information from the perspective of the

Church, and the AGN provided detailed case studies about specific mills and canals

(legal and administrative documents).

Historical Analysis: Databases and Mapping/Spatial Analysis

Two basic historical analysis strategies were applied. The first involved compiling, coding, and interpreting the information collected from the LCL in database form (Database Creation). To do this, the 1600 forms compiled from the LCL were sorted and coded according to themes (e.g., mills, canals, levees, droughts, wheat purchases, granaries, wheat and bread prices, and more). Each theme was analyzed in chronological order, to develop timelines for important events, policies, conflicts,

16 The National Archive of Peru (AGN) and the National Library of Peru (BN) were closed for emergency inventory following a series of publicized thefts for nearly the entire year I was in Lima doing research (2011). Given this setback, these archives were not analyzed in a comprehensive way.

41 infrastructure projects, and more. Data from each of these chronologies was then interpreted according to annual, repeating, cyclical, or long-term events and processes, as well as one-time occurrences punctuating these more repetitive patterns.

The second analytic technique involved mapping the information contained in these databases and interpreting spatial patterns (Spatial Analysis). Spatial visualization and mapping of archival information is an important component of historical geographic work in general (Holdsworth 2003), and mapping the historical data in the Cabildo was fundamental to this dissertation’s overall project. Mapping LCL data was in some ways fairly straightforward, but several complications warrant explanation. It was straightforward because the Cabildo mainly dealt with issues that occurred within Lima’s urban zone, and Lima’s core colonial street grid has remained virtually unchanged since its original inception. In addition, Juan Bromley, a renowned Cabildo scholar, has published two remarkable studies of Lima’s urban history. In these he reconstructed each city block, recording property ownership for almost the entire colonial period (Bromley

2005; Bromley and Barbagelata 1945). Other historians provided additional information about property ownership (Lohmann Villena 1983, 1993), and irrigation canals

(Domínguez 1988). Therefore, using a modern Google basemap and prior historians’ descriptions, it was often fairly simple to locate (with a reasonable level of certainty) the colonial period gristmills, levees, canals, drinking water pipelines, and public fountains described in the LCL, even if they dated to the 16th century. At a regional scale, maps were created to show the locations where the wheat consumed in Lima originated. These towns and river valleys were identified using their modern names and locations.

Unfortunately no cadastral maps are available for the period in question that could assist

42 in directly identifying landowners and properties. Wheat origin is simply listed by

town/valley, and not specific field, estate, or landowner. For the three case studies on

mills, water, and wheat, maps were created for distinct chronological periods to show

changes over time.

Several complications or difficulties were encountered while mapping the

archival data derived from the LCL. Google data was used for most of the basemaps, but

this displays the modern city, which is not quite the same as the 16th and 17th century

city. Moreover, as the city grew from its foundation in 1535, the urban-rural

boundary/frontier was pushed ever farther away from the main plaza (the city center), and

this rate of change is hard to identify, although Bromley and Barbagelata (1945, 69)

estimate that the city grew from 316 ha (1.2 mi2) in 1613 to 354 ha (1.4 mi2) by 1685.

Also, during the periods being mapped –– especially the earliest ones –– some of the streets shown in the modern Google map were not yet constructed. Both of these issues are difficult to visualize, however a fuzzy transparent border was used, especially in the water themed maps, to represent the growing city. This matter is compounded by the reality that there were no 16th or 17th century maps of Lima that could be used, although several 18th and 19th century maps did inform this dissertation’s cartography.17 In

particular the 1713 Frezier map and the 1862 [original 1787] map of Lima’s water

pipelines were relied on as references (Ramón Joffré 2010). Bromley’s reconstruction of

Lima in 1613 was used as the basemap for the maps of Lima’s mills (Chapter 3)

(Bromley and Barbagelata 1945, Figure 3) There are no existing (surviving) maps of

17 The one existing 17th century map- "Planta De La Muy Y Ilustre Ciudad De los Reyes Corte Del Reino Del Peru [Lima]" by Bernardo Clemente Principe- is held at the Library of Congress, and is not currently in legible condition.

43 Lima and/or its water systems from the 16th or 17th centuries that were useful for this project (Bell 2012; see also Chapter 3).

In the above I have described the main structure of the analysis methods used in this dissertation. I carried out slightly different processes of sorting, coding, analysis, and mapping for each of the three case studies, and so each chapter includes additional description of methods.

Ethnographic Study

The historical analysis was complemented by ethnographic study of horizontal water wheel gristmills currently being used in Peru. Many such mills are still used on a seasonal basis for grinding wheat and other grains into flour in the rural highlands of

Peru, and also the other Andean nations of Bolivia and Ecuador (Gade 1971). For this study, Peru’s department of Ancash was selected for a regional study because it is an area with an especially high concentration of functioning mills (see map in Appendix B).

Approximately fifty Ancash mills were visited in the areas of the Callejón de Huaylas and Callejon de Conchucos, and a similar number of millers and mill users were interviewed about this milling technology. The ethnographic fieldwork included: mapping the location of the mill and its feeder and discharge canals with a handheld GPS, making scale drawings of the mill sites, and photographing all aspects of the mills in detail. It also included semi-structured interviews with millers/mill owners, as well as mill users and other neighbors. This regional survey allowed for observation of a range of varieties within the broad category of horizontal water wheel gristmill. Additional details about these research methods as well as the results are presented in Appendix B.

44 The objective of this ethnographic analysis was to use understandings derived from current day mills to animate descriptions of mills in colonial documents. However, it is important to be clear about what such ethnographic analogy can and cannot provide.

First, and most importantly, comes the objective derived from historical political ecology of reading historical documents through a perspective informed by fieldwork and ethnographic research (Offen 2004). In the case of mills, visiting still functioning horizontal water wheel gristmills provided familiarity with the sites, sounds, and smells of milling. These observations certainly affected the reading of 16th and 17th century mill descriptions. More tangibly, many current-day millers use old-fashioned vocabulary to describe the components of a mill. These same words are found in the colonial period documents, and without the explanations of the millers many of these terms would have been difficult to interpret. Miller interviews also identified many issues that were described in colonial documents, especially related to seasonality of water supplies and conflicts with irrigators over water use. Overall, seeing mills, and talking with people who knew how to build them, use them, and maintain them led to richer readings of the colonial documents. It also helped to preserve some of the living knowledge about this technology that has all but died out in Spain and other parts of the Old World.

There are, however, important distinctions to be made between the highland

Ancash mills and the colonial Lima mills. Physically, the differences in terrain and topography in which mills were/are sited would lead to different kinds of water accumulation and supply mechanisms between the highland (Ancash) and coastal (Lima) mills. Construction materials, quality of finishing/external structure, and size of mills probably also varied. Socially, the two contexts are totally different: under no

45 circumstances should the social, political or economic contexts of milling nowadays be compared with the colonial past. Such a direct historical approach to ethnographic analogy is problematic, and should not be undertaken. That said, ignoring the living experts on this technology would have been wasteful, and even an irresponsible approach to the history of this technology.

Chapter Outlines

I examine the conceptual relationships between technology, environmental resource flows, and environmental resource governance through analysis of mills, water, and grain. In the following I devote one major chapter to each of these case studies.

Mills are used as the focal point from which to consider water and grain flows more broadly, in both a physical and conceptual sense, and so my study starts by looking at mills themselves. With each chapter I progressively work outward in scale, from neighborhood and city scale (Chapter 2 - mill technology), to city and regional scale

(Chapter 3 - water flows), to regional and extra-colonial scale (Chapter 4 - grain governance). In all chapters I analyze the period from approximately 1535-1700, from the foundation of the city to then end of the 16th century.

In Chapter 2, I present a detailed discussion of where and when Lima’s gristmills were built, and by whom. I analyze conflicts arising from mill use related to water management and grain fraud. Specifically, I looks at how water and grain flowed into and out of the actual mill buildings, and how the Cabildo regulated those flows. With respect to water flow, this regulation had to do with resolving conflicts between neighbors over water use and drainage, and handling neighborhood-scale issues related to

46 canal and bridge maintenance. With respect to grain flow, this regulation focused on avoiding grain fraud through control of weights, measures, and transport. In this chapter

I examine the Technology-Flows-Governance triangle from the perspective of technology

(Figure 1.6). I analyze the role of technology in nature-society relations and demonstrate how analysis of material objects can improve understandings of the socio-environmental transformations of the Columbian Exchange.

In Chapter 3, I look at water use and governance in colonial Lima more broadly.

Lima’s colonial water system was made up of four interacting components: river, canals

(irrigation, industrial, and sanitation), springs, and precipitation. These all fell under the authority and jurisdiction of the Cabildo. I analyze intersections of biophysical processes, hydraulic infrastructure, and municipal authorities to demonstrate how Lima’s system of municipal water governance was implemented and developed. I closely examine three case studies: 1) River/Seasonal Flooding- Levees-Levee Commissioners;

2) Springs-Reservoir/Water Pipe Network-Pipeline Commissioners; 3) Precipitation-

Religious Processions-San Marcelo (“the lawyer of the crops”). Through these case studies I examine the authority of the Cabildo and the contested definition of the territory it controlled. I also look at the ways social tensions were both reflected and created by the allocation of rights to irrigation and drinking water, and by the city’s flood protection policy. I apply insights from political ecology and especially builds upon work in historical political ecology. Here, I look at the Technology-Flows-Governance triangle from the perspective of flows. I analyze how physical flows of water influenced the infrastructure (technology) used, as well as the governance strategies applied.

47 In Chapter 4, I examine wheat flows into and out of the city. I reconstruct the

Cabildo’s wheat provisioning strategies, focusing on how they were adapted over time to changing economic, social, and ecological situations. Specifically, I look at issues of space and scale to examine the expansion of the hinterland from which Lima drew its wheat, the changing patterns of wheat import and export, and the wheat “crisis” of the late 17th century. I identify four phases in the flow of wheat into and out of the city: 1)

Local production with some export (1540-1569); 2) Local and regional production with little export (1570-1622); 3) Local and regional production with increasing imports and no export (1623-1687); and 4) Collapse of local and regional production with a sharp increase in (extra-colonial) imports and no export (1687-1705). I show how the Cabildo attempted to control the flow of wheat, first by making purchases and establishing a municipal granary, and later by setting official wheat and bread prices. I explain how the

Cabildo strategies demonstrate the competing interests of farmers, merchants, bakers, and consumers, revealing divisions in Lima society more generally. My conceptual framework is derived from studies of environmental resource flows, urban metabolism, and urban political ecology. I use this framework to build upon and re-imagine studies of the Columbian Exchange from an urban and governance perspective. In this chapter I begin from the governance vertex of the Technology-Flows-Governance triangle: I focus on the changing strategies employed by the Cabildo in order to ensure a steady

(affordable) flow of wheat and bread to Lima’s residents.

In each of these three chapters I look at the feedback relationships between technology, environmental resource flows, and environmental resource governance described above. I use these case studies to demonstrate how the Cabildo developed and

48 adapted its strategies for the regulation of flows of water, wheat, and people. Together, these case studies indicate how the Cabildo amassed and applied institutional knowledge of technology-environment-society interactions over time (Figure 1.6). The Cabildo was not always successful in its endeavors, and at times it seems that its goal was to maintain and consolidate its own power, rather than to actually solve the problems of urban residents. Diverse aspects of technology, flows, governance, and (institutional) knowledge –– are considered as contributing to the broad social-environmental transformations in colonial Lima, with significance for understandings of Spanish colonialism and the Columbian Exchange more generally. In the conclusion, I take up the issue of how these insights are relevant to analysis of other historical periods, and what my findings might suggest about current day relations between technology, flows, and governance.

49 to Carabayllo

Huachipa

LURIGANCHO Spring Zone 2 R. Rímac “Sabana” Spring Zone 1 Pie del Cerro ca “Atarjea” Sn.Lazaro ati R. Rímac Hu o Legua urc S

Stone Bridge CERCADO Port of La Legua ATE CALLAO LIMA a a n rang ale Ma Magd ica Maranga at u H

MAGDALENA

Urban Zone Indian Reducciones or Territories Haciendas o rc u Main Roads S River Irrigation Canals SURCO Zones with concentrations Pacific Ocean of Gristmills Springs

Municipal Drinking to Pachacamac Water Pipelines

Elevation (m.a.s.l.) <150 >150 >300 >450 >600 >900

0 1 2 3 4 5 Kms N

50 Figure 1.1. Map of important features in Lima's mill, water, and wheat landscape. Sources: Domínguez 1988, Bromley and Barbagelta (1954), “Plan[o] Topográfico” (1787). . Aerial photos of the Rímac river, along its course between springs (and modern water treatement plant) at "Atarjea" Figure 1.2 Photos from 1944, courtesy of Gilda Cogorno the "Colonial Hydraulic Archaeol ogy: (right) and the colonial center of Lima (left). (Lima 1535-1796)," of the Instituto Riva-Agüero (IRA). Authorities, Infrastructure and Political Networks

51

Figure 1.3. Photographs representing seasonal change in Rímac river flow. Top: Rímac river, from bridge (see map, Figure 1.1.), in early April 2011 (summer/wet season/high flow); Bottom: Same view, late June 2011(winter/ dry season/low flow)

52

Figure 1.4. Important sectors of Lima society and aspects of its environment/ agriculture relevant to the case studies of mills, water, and wheat in the 16th and 17th century. The relative power of these social sectors is illustrated generally by their location in the diagram (most powerful at top). The relationships between these sectors and their relative power changed over the study period; these shifts are described in Chapters 2-4 and summarized (and diagrammed) in Chaper 5. All images are by Pancho Fierro (19th century) except for the “Small-Medium Farmers,” “Millers,” “Wheat,” and “Water” which are by Martinez de Compañón (18th century) and “Viceroy” and “Large Merchants” which are from Wikipedia Commons. 53 Figure 1.5. Technology-Flows-Governance Framework

54 Figure 1.6. Technology-Flows-Governance Framework applied to case study of mills, water, and wheat in Colonial Lima

55 Table 1.1. Definitions of the three principal concepts: Technology, Environmental Resource Flows, and Environmental Resource Governance.

Principal Concept Definition Related Approaches (see Table 1.2) Technology A broad corpus of knowledge about how to perform activities that mediate between Cultural/Human Ecology, nature and society, in other words, by which humans make use of the environment Nature Society (Glick 1996). When analyzing technology the focus is often on a material object-- a Geography, tool or machine-- and its use. However, this object can be understood as the sum of a Environmental History, wider history of technical ideas and environmental knowledge, including aspects of Historical Political culture, politics, economics, social relations, and landscape (e.g., Swyngedouw 1999; Ecology, Assemblage Carney 2001; Kaika 2006; Birkenholtz 2009; Zimmerer 2011). Environmental Resource Flows Material flows of water, energy, food, raw, materials, wastes and more, that connect Nature Society technologies (or objects, including cities) to broader networks, assemblages, and Geography, Historical landscapes. Here flows are analyzed according to their spatiality and materiality as Political Ecology, well as their political and social composition (Bridge 2001; Gandy 2004; Swyngedouw Assemblage, Urban 2006). Interruptions or friction in smooth flows is expected and directly contributes to Metabolism, Urban their governance (see below) (Tsing 2005). Political Ecology, Environmental Resource Decision-making (and the politics of decision-making) about the use and management Nature Society Governance of the environment and natural resources by diverse institutions, individuals and groups Geography, at multiple levels and spatial scales (Lemos and Agrawal 2006; Bridge and Perreault Environmental History, 2009). Here these "multiple levels" range from general (i.e., categories of decision- Historical Political makers) to the most specific (i.e., the decisions that are actually made). This most Ecology specific level is referred to in the main text as government, administration and/or management. "Spatial scales" of decision-making refers to the actual physical area being decided upon (i.e., city limits, region, watershed, etc.) as well as the politics of this scale (i.e., contestation over the scale at which decisions are made) (McCarthy 2005). The use of the concept of environmental resource governance falls within the area of overlap between the categories of "Governance as a problematic of scale" and "Governance as commodity chain coordination" as proposed by Bridge and Perreault (2009, 477-480).

56 Table 1.2. Definitions of related approaches informing the three principal concepts described in Table 1.1. This includes explanation of how these related approaches are used (or not used) in this dissertation, and how these approaches are compatible with the other principal concepts and related approaches. These definitions and explanations are intended to supplement and further explain the terms and concepts referred to in the main text. The approaches listed in this table are not (entirely) in the same order as they are referred to in the main text; their order here represents a logical flow for reading the table.

Supporting Definition and Components of Concept Components of Concept Not Applied Compatibility with principal Concept Applied concepts and related approaches

Cultural/ The study of human-environment or nature- Aspects of cultural/human ecological work This concept provides a foundation for Human society interactions and relations. Here, that rely on concepts of equilibrium, all of those described in the remainder Ecology Cultural/Human Ecology's general focus on systems theory, or cybernetics are not of this table. Here, the emphasis on “how people live, doing what, how well, for applied here (see discussion in Butzer "coupled" natural and cultural how long, and with what environmental and 1989), mainly because of the historical, understanding of land use and social constraints” (Butzer 1989, 192), is dynamic and contingent approach followed environmental change is taken as applied, especially with respect to food in this dissertation (these aspects tend to foundational. production and water use practices. Attention emphasize steady state or relatively to empirical, fieldwork-based methods, and unchanging relationships between humans multiple methods in general is also significant and the environment). (Turner 1989). In this dissertation, these issues are explored with respect for history and change over time (Doolittle 1984; Gade 1992).

Nature-Society While originally applied to explain the The narrow subset of Nature-Society work Here, this approach is used as a Geography incorporation of material reality (nature) into that can be classified as applying overly foundation for aspects of principal Marxist analysis of social relations: "the economistic or crudely political-economic concepts and related approaches geographical and historical dialectic between concepts of technological change. concepts that deal with political societies and their material environments" economy and/or social relations (FitzSimmons 1989, 106), now the term has (especially Technology, Environmental come to label a sub-field of geography, and is Flows, Environmental Governance, and used as an umbrella for nearly all work on Historical and Urban Political Ecology) nature-society relations and human- environment interactions (Zimmerer 2010). Here, the term is used in this broader sense,

57 however its application falls more toward the nature-society relations end of the spectrum, meaning the focus in this dissertation is on "critical approaches in environmental social sciences and humanities" (see Zimmerer 2010, 1084 and Figure 3). Consequently, this dissertation highlights aspects of political economy, social relations, the material foundations of production and society, environmental governance, and political ecology.

Environmental A diverse field that examines the changing Changing ideas about and perceptions and The other related approaches History relations between humans and their values of the environment-- sometimes introduced below are used to help environments (or nature and society) over called "intellectual encounters with explain the origins, development, and time (Butzer 2005; Endfield 2009). Here, nature"-- is a major component of existence of the nature-society relations human use of the environment, and especially environmental history (Endfield 2009, described in this dissertation. To this of natural resources, and its change is 223), which for the most part is not end, this dissertation follows examples explored. Following Endfield (2009, 226, examined here. This is mainly because from key works in Environmental 232), two major themes are especially these topics are only obliquely referred to History, many of which link to other explored: 1) A "nuanced take on agency" in the empirical data. themes, especially: colonial period land whereby human use of lands and resources is use and environmental change (Crosby seen as shaping landscape change over time, 1972; Cronon 1983) and the but the specific characteristics of these lands development of cities in relation to and resources are also seen as shaping how flows of resources (Cronon 1991; humans were able to use them; 2) Gandy 2003). More recent work that Consideration of historical understandings of incorporates aspects of/ideas related to natural resources and biophysical processes assemblage theory into environmental (through reconstruction of the ways that history is also considered (e.g., resources were used/understood). Swyngedouw 1999; Biehler 2009).

Historical Historical political ecology calls for the Two major components of political Historical Political Ecology has much Political application of historical perspectives within a ecology/historical political ecology not overlap with historical approaches in Ecology broadly defined political ecology point of directly investigated here are:1) Attention the previously discussed supporting view (Offen 2004; Davis 2009; Zimmerer and to voices and perspectives from below is concepts (especially Cultural/Human Bassett 2003). Here, this means investigating not always possible in historical research Ecology, Nature-Society Geography, questions inspired by political ecology about given the deficiencies of historical and Environmental History, however, the influence of power, politics, markets, documents in this regard (when compared its primary difference is its attention to

58 economics, and social relations on land and to interviews or ethnographic techniques). power, politics and economics in its resource use within historical contexts. This Such information was not directly possible interpretation of environmental change approach follows the example of several key in this dissertation. 2) Historical data and and land use. works, including: or more distant (Watts interpretations were not used to 1983; Sluyter 1999; Swyngedouw 1999; demonstrate how current environmental Zimmerer 2000; Carney 2001; Davis 2004; conflicts or resource management practices Endfield and Fernández Tejedo 2006; Davis are the result of European imperialism or 2007; Endfield 2008; Biehler 2009; Carey colonialism (Brannstrom 2004; Davis 2010). Historical political ecology work 2009; Offen 2011). typically uses multiple methods and data sources: including archival, biophysical and ethnographic (Davis 2009). It often has the broad goal (underlying or explicit) of improving current day environmental conservation practices or policies or social justice through reference to past political ecological relations (Offen 2004; Davis 2009).

Assemblage With roots in Actor-Network Theory (Latour The components of "immanence" and "flat The critique that assemblages/actor- 2005), here assemblages are defined as ontology" are at the outer limit of how networks do not adequately account for dynamic and emerging relations between assemblage theory is being used here. power differences or political- multiple and interconnected entities (including "Immanence" is used only to refer to a set economic structures more generally is objects, people, processes, and more). These of relations (an assemblage) that is taken as a given, and consequently the entities influence one another and work upon "unfolding," that includes more than can joint concepts of urban metabolism and on another to create unique and potentially be predicted or planned, and therefore that urban political ecology are employed unanticipated social-environmental outcomes. can lead to the previously mentioned (see below). In other words, the concept is being used in unanticipated social-environmental - this dissertation as shorthand for the ecological outcomes (see Shaw, Robbins, "heterogeneous associations" described above. and Jones III 2010). Since this concept incorporates non-human entities (especially technologies) it is of special use here. (definition here adapted from the various applications of the concept in: Birkenholtz 2009; Robbins and Marks 2009; Shaw, Robbins, and Jones III 2010; Biehler and Simon 2011; Zimmerer 2011).

59 Urban A metaphor for the physical flows of materials The idea of a "metabolic-rift" (Foster Here, the metabolism metaphor is given Metabolism or resources through a city (e.g., food, water, 1999; Moore 2000; Clark and Foster 2009; political, economic, and social raw materials, etc), where they are Swyngedouw 2006), in other words the significance through its pairing with transformed into something else (e.g., material imperialistic extraction of resources from urban political ecology (see below). goods, wealth, waste) (Gandy 2004; one region to another (either urban-rural or The metabolism metaphor also Swyngedouw 2006) core-periphery) without a corresponding connects well with the network or return of resources (e.g., extraction of food assemblage approach outlined above-- without a return of waste as compost to (especially) through its analysis of rebuild soil fertility-- the "classic" example flows that connect diverse resources, of metabolic rift) is not examined locations, objects, technologies, explicitly here. Specifically, this is individuals, and more. because no data on soil fertility is available for the case studies presented in this dissertation. More generally, the focus here is on management of flows, and the issue of potential inequalities in this management is dealt with using approaches from Urban Political Ecology (see below). Urban Political Like the broader field of Political Ecology, Much work in Urban Political Ecology Combined with urban metabolism, this Ecology this sub-area focuses on the uneven focuses on conflicts, protests, and other approach informs the principal concept distribution of and access to environments and disruptive events dealing with urban of flows. It prevents the metabolism natural resources, as well as conflicts and nature. Here the focus is instead placed on metaphor from becoming overly contestation related to this distribution and the everyday, normal aspects of governing functional by specifically asking how access (Heynen, Kaika, and Swyngedouw resources in cities, which is a less explored political, economic, and social power 2006). Here a political ecology perspective is theme in this sub-field. shapes the urban metabolism applied to urban environmental and natural (Swyngedouw 2006). Through its resource flows, to examine why some flows influence on understandings of flows, benefit certain individuals/groups while the urban political ecology perspective disadvantaging others. Conflicts at all levels helps inform interpretations of cities are explored, including between individuals, (and technologies) as points of between social classes, and between the confluence of flows, or in other words empire/core and colony/periphery. components of assemblages.

60 Chapter 2

Technology in a Landscape Perspective: Following Flows of Water, Grain, and People through Gristmills

Behind the loaf is the flour And behind the flour is the mill, Behind the mill is the wind and the shower And the sun, and the Father’s will - A Blessing18

18 This and other "mill sayings" in this chapter's headings are from the remarkable compilation of Theodore R. Hazen (http://www.angelfire.com/journal/pondlilymill/index.html)

61 Introduction In one of the earliest petitions to build a mill in Peru –– not in Lima, but in the

northern province of Piura –– an unnamed resident argued his case: “...that even though

men are necessary, we also need those things that sustain us....” (Pérez de Tudela y Bueso

1964, v. 2 603-604).19 The reasoning of this prospective miller alludes to underlying themes in the study of the Columbian Exchange, even though his personal motivation may have been trying to avoid military service by arguing for his “utility” in a different profession, his reasoning, namely, that early settlers and colonists knew that it was not sufficient to simply occupy a new territory, it was also necessary to import the aspects of

European life that made their new lives livable in order to implement full territorial control. This process of territorialization included many aspects of food and agriculture, and the prospective miller serves as a reminder that it was not just seeds that were needed, but also the tools of their cultivation and processing. As this miller also pointed out, these items served economic purposes: he anticipated a healthy profit from his mill.

Finally, this case makes explicit mention of the permit process, and thus the official allocation and governance of rights to resources.

As explained in Chapter 1, the analysis of tools and technology can help us better understand nature-society or human-environment relations because it stands as evidence of the ways that humans have modified their environment as well as of their knowledge about their environment (See Chapter 1, Table 1.1). Analysis of tools and technology within the context of the Columbian Exchange in particular allows for new perspectives

19 Original citation: "...hacer un molino, que aunque seamos menester los hombres, también son menester las haciendas para sustentarnos...." (Pérez de Tudela y Bueso 1964, 603-604; also cited in Ramos Pérez 1967, 1). This letter is undated, but the letter is addressed to Gonzalo Pizarro, who was governor of Peru from 1544-1548, and who was killed in 1548 (other documents in the collections date to 1547-1550).

62 on overarching questions about the social-environmental changes initiated by the arrival

of the Europeans to the New World. In this chapter, I take the specific case of the

introduction of gristmills--a European agricultural and water-powered technology used to

grind wheat into flour--to Lima, Peru. As described in Chapter 1, I conceive of mills not

as isolated objects, but rather as points of convergence of broader scale flows of water,

grain, and people (Chapter 1).20 Therefore, I analyze mills in a landscape or spatial perspective, incorporating analysis of the larger systems of organization of resource use and productive activities developed in Lima under Spanish colonialism. Moving outwards from one “tool,” I ask how mill construction and use interacted with natural hydrologic processes, as well as how it was incorporated into and interacted with the organization of land use (e.g. irrigation, wheat cultivation) and the governance of this land use (e.g. administration of water rights, regulation of grain trade). In this chapter, I explore the relationships between technology, environmental resource flows and environmental resource governance from the perspective of technology (see Figure 1.6,

Chapter 1). I question how technology is situated within broader environmental resource flows, and also how it can direct these influence the direction that these flows take (i.e., where they go and how they get there) as well as the way these flows are governed.

To address these questions, I designed and utilize here a two-stage methodology focused on gristmills. First, using historical documents, I reconstructed patterns of mill building and use in Lima between 1540-1700, and created a database of when, where, and by whom mills were built. Second, using this spatial and chronological information I analyzed the social and environmental interactions or conflicts that resulted from mill

20 Here, flows of people should be understood both literally, as people passing through and around mills, but also in its broader sense, as the social context of milling more generally and the place of millers in society overall.

63 construction, use, and administration. This allowed for interpretation and discussion of the place of mills in colonial society, and specifically the relationships between millers, bakers, the Cabildo (city council), and the Church. I conclude by reflecting upon what analysis of mills and milling can contribute to understandings of the social and environmental changes of the Columbian Exchange more generally, as well as by identifying insights applicable to the study of mills in other historical-geographic contexts. In addition, I discuss the benefits of applying a technology-based approach to the study of nature-society relations.

Nature-Society-Technology Relations and the Columbian Exchange

Recent work has been demonstrating how analysis of agricultural and/or water- related technology can provides key windows into nature-society relations (e.g.,

Bebbington 2004; Kirsch and Mitchell 2004; Swyngedouw 2004; Birkenholtz 2009;

Mitchell 2009; Carey 2010; Jansen and Vellema 2011; Zimmerer 2011). Based on these recent studies, as well as more classic works, I have developed an approach for understanding technology in the context of nature-society relations that incorporates environmental knowledge, cultural identity, political motivation, political economy and the idea of assemblages. In Chapter 1, each of these components was introduced, but several major aspects relevant to this specific case study bear reiteration here.

First, in the most straightforward approach, technology is understood as a link between nature and society (e.g., Marx 1976 [1867], 133-134; Mumford 1934, 10; essays in Bates et al. 1956), which incorporates not just mechanical devices but also technical and environmental knowledge (Glick 1996, 1-2). Second is the understanding that this

64 technical knowledge is closely tied to both cultural identity (Lemonnier 1993), and the

politics of this identity (Swyngedouw 1999; Carney 2001; Kaika 2005, 2006). What

tools and technologies are selected for use, as well as how they are used, reveals

significant features of the traditions and knowledge systems of the people who use them.

Third, technology can also be used to understand broader contexts of production and

wider ranging social and environmental linkages. From a broadly Marxian perspective,

technology and its use can explain social relations of production generally, especially in

historical contexts. (e.g., Bloch 1935; Thompson 1971; Kula 1986). Finally, comes the

consideration for how technology is linked into networks of environmental resource

flows. Here, I use general insights derived from the assemblage approach to indicate how

diverse social and ecological relationships can be brought together in objects (Zimmerer

2011; Bridge and Perreault 2009; see also the discussion of the glass of water in

Swyngedouw 2004, 28). In general, this idea of varied and seemingly separate processes

united in a single material object or technology is the main benefit of a technology-based

approach to the study of nature-society relations; it provides the basis for developing

insights into a range of environmental, socio-cultural, political, and economic processes.

Tools and technology have not typically been the focus of Columbian Exchange

studies. Traditionally these studies have looked at biological entities –– like seeds,

plants, animals, diseases –– transferred between the Old and New worlds during the

colonial period (Crosby 1972). However, people moving between continents also

brought the tools and technologies needed to use these biological entities productively.

For example, in her landmark book, Black Rice, Judith Carney (2001) demonstrated how overt focus on the botanical transfers of the Columbian Exchange (i.e. studying seeds)

65 detracts from understandings of the cultural and technical knowledge systems to which

the plants belonged (see also Cronon 1983:14). Instead, she considered “landscapes of

technology transfer,” using close study of irrigation technology, soil management

practices, and rice cultivation and processing techniques to show how West African

cultural knowledge shaped the development of the rice plantation economy in the

American South (16th-18th century) (see also Carney 1996). Tools and technologies provide some of the key evidence for her arguments: the links she constructs between material objects used in colonial times and ethnographic observations of similar objects still used in West Africa support claims for which little written evidence exists. Carney’s approach exemplifies the ways a technology-based approach can contribute to richer understandings of production practices and daily life in distant historical periods.

Carney’s approach specifically placed technology into a landscape perspective, by focusing on the spatial organization of production activities. However, other aspects of

Columbian Exchange period landscape transformation are also significant. Sluyter’s discussion of “conceptual landscape transformation” (Sluyter 1999) is one such example.

Sluyter argued that it is not sufficient to examine the material changes to the landscape that resulted from colonialism and the Columbian Exchange without also considering conceptual changes, defined as transformations in the categories through which the landscape is understood. Conceptual landscape changes include the development and definition of rights to land and other resources, and thus the management and governance practices applied in the administration of colonial territories is another crucial analytic category (Harris 2004; on mapping see also Hunter and Sluyter 2011). Overall, studying technology in a landscape perspective includes attention to both physical/material and

66 conceptual/organizational components of its use.

To analyze the introduction of European agricultural technologies to the New

World, as part of the Columbian Exchange, this chapter ask several key questions: What were the objects (tools, technologies) that were introduced? And, how did their use entail the alteration of the environment and landscape, both materially and conceptually? How was the use of these technologies administrated and regulated, and by what branch of colonial government? Methodologically, this entails reconstruction of what technology was introduced where, as well as close attention to how it was used and how it was governed. Overall, the goal is to improve understandings of the basic foundations of life in the colonies, especially food production and natural resource access, based on evidence not previously given close attention.

Molinological Research and Gristmill Analysis

Mills have provided the grist for much scholarly endeavor in the history of technology, economic history, and social history. Marx wrote that “the whole history of the development of machinery can be traced in the history of the corn mill” (1976 [1867],

468), and indeed, there is a rich and valuable tradition of mill studies that can be found to illustrate the approaches to technology in nature-society relations outlined above. These studies span historical periods and geographic areas, and while some quite clearly are focused on analysis of mills, millers, and hydraulic systems (e.g., Hunter 1967; Gade

1971, 2011; Gritzner 1974; Cresswell 1983; Holt 1988; Glick 1996; Glick and Kirchner

2000; Barceló 2004; Glick and Martínez 2006; Copenheaver et al. 2007; Walter and

Merritts 2008), others seem to incorporate mills because they happened to be relevant to

67 the broader issues being considered (e.g., Marx 1976 [1867]; Bloch 1935; Thompson

1971; Braudel 1982). Within these diverse research projects, mills have been used to

trace cultural movements/migrations, to identify settlement patterns, and to understand

cultural landscapes or “ways of life.” They have also been used to explain social

interactions, such as those between farmers, millers, bakers, and grain consumers;

between millers and irrigators; or between estate owners and peasants. While the studies

listed here are not the only ones that reference mills and milling, they are highlighted

because they all pay attention to either the specific mill technology or its use and

governance. These are the basic units of analysis for studying technology in the context

of the Columbian Exchange, and the nature-society relations of the early colonial period,

and they are the two categories that form the foundation for the analysis of Lima

gristmills in remainder of this chapter.

The first of the basic units considers what kind of mill is being used and how it

works. Four different categories of gristmill were known on the Iberian Peninsula at the

time of Exploration and Conquest.21 These can be classified based on power source: hand-powered (or animal-powered), wind-powered, water-powered by a horizontally oriented water wheel, or water-powered by vertically oriented water wheel (both overshot and undershot). It was the horizontal water-wheel mill that the Spanish introduced to

Peru (Gade 1971). This mill was originally brought to the Iberian Peninsula prior to the

12th century by Muslim populations (Glick and Kirchner 2000, 310; see also Vera

Nicolás n.d.). It is typically considered to be a simple technology, and has even been called rustic or backwards (Gritzner 1974). This reputation stems from several features

21 My literature review of mill varieties and functioning focuses on the Iberian Peninsula of the 12th-16th centuries, as this has most direct geographic and temporal relevance for the Peruvian mills.

68 of the horizontal mill: namely that it is relatively small, easy and inexpensive to construct, and that it requires no gearing and little metal. However, in Spain, the water accumulation and delivery mechanisms for this type of mill could become quite complex

(Barceló 2004; Glick 2005; Turriano 1996 [1576]), and this mill is the direct technological ancestor of the turbine currently used for hydroelectric production (see

Chapter 5).

The basic structure of this mill is illustrated in Figure 2.1. The mill is powered by water directed down an inclined chute onto the “spoons” or “slats” of the water wheel.

The rotation of the wheel is directly linked to the “runner” stone (upper of the two stones), by a wood and iron axis, or “spindle.” This spindle turns on an iron pivot located underneath the wheel, rotating the runner stone over the lower, fixed stone. Both stones are furrowed or “dressed” to create the grinding surface. Grain is introduced to the wooden hopper located above the millstones, and enters the stones through a corresponding hole in the runner stone. Flour is collected in a wooden or stone enclosure surrounding the millstones.

The water directed to the wheel can be derived via a short millrace from a natural stream or from an irrigation canal (Figure 2.2). If water flow in these sources is not sufficient, a small dam can be created to collect water in a pond or stone tank, directly prior to the mill. Water flowing out of the mill (after passing the wheel), is directed either back to the original source or into a different stream/canal. This is a detail of vital importance, it means that the mill uses but does not consume water, and that water used for milling can later be used for other purposes. The way water is delivered and drained from the mill has direct implications for the placement of mills on the landscape, both in

69 relation to topography and to other mills and water users. For example, when mills are built on irrigation canals, milling has to be carried out in conjunction with irrigation schedules. This is especially important when mills are located further downstream along a canal, with users drawing water from the canals above them. Mills that draw water directly from rivers or streams are faced with their own complications: floods or strong flow events can damage or destroy the weirs or the diversion dams that feed the millraces.

Since the horizontal gristmill is rather small and limited in size by millstone weight (if the runner stone gets too large, it weighs too much for the water to move), the amount of flour that one set of millstones can grind is correspondingly limited. The best way to increase flour production is to build more mills (Cresswell 1983). Almost anywhere that horizontal mills are used they can be found in clusters or rows, in other words multiple mills sharing watercourses (Glick 1995, 117; Hunter 1967) (Figure 2.3).

Water can be directed from the outflow of one mill right into the intake for a second mill.

A second method by which flour output can be increased is through the construction of mills with multiple sets of millstones (Figure 2.4). This means that multiple sets of stones are housed within the same structure, but that each set of millstones has its own waterwheel and inclined chute. This adaptation of the horizontal mill was known at least by the 16th century in Spain (and likely earlier) (Turriano 1996 [1576]; see also Glick

1995, 118).

Governance is the second basic unit of analysis. Given the proximity of multiple mills, often with different owners, it is not surprising that clusters/rows have historically been sites of conflict. For example, Glick and Martínez (2006) report a specific example

70 from 14th century Valencia, where mills upstream and downstream from one another

disrupted water flow to purposefully interfere with each other’s operation. Such

problems resulted in the creation of laws regulating water flow, requiring water to flow

uninterrupted through mills, or through their bypass canals (Glick and Martínez 2006,

200). Other examples of Spanish laws from the 12th-13th centuries protect the rights of a

mill to its water connection, and specify fines for physical damages to a mill’s water

connection or for cutting its water flow. There was also a strong legal tradition of

regulating the order of distribution of water between various users (including irrigators

and millers), especially in times of drought (all examples from González Tascón and

Vázquez de la Cueva 1993, 38-39).22 These laws suggest the kinds of problems that arose from water use for horizontal milling and indicate the kinds of legal solutions developed across the Iberian Peninsula in the Middle Ages. This is the tradition the

Spanish drew upon in Peru.

Water flow is at the heart of both mill functioning and governance. Summarizing from the molinological literature on Medieval Spain (with one example from Italy), water-related conflicts or “interactions” caused by water flow through working mills could take three general forms: a) Relations between milling and natural streams

(Squatriti 1998); b) Upstream-downstream relations between multiple mills (Glick and

Martínez 2006); and c) Relations between mills and other water users, especially irrigators (Glick and Kirchner 2000; Glick 1995, 117-118) (illustrations in Figure 2.5).

These interactions are directly related to mechanical features of horizontal mills and the water flowing through them, and they are inherently spatial.

22 Places and years for the laws referenced: Brihuega 1224, Navarra 1247, Plasencia 1247, Castilla 1248, Cuenca 1260.

71 Mills are also tied to the grain flowing into them and the flour flowing out. The same molinological literature also outlines typical grain conflicts or “interactions” that occurred in mills. These are generally related to fraud in grain measurement or grain quality. A common way for city councils to regulate grain fraud was through the weighing of grain both on its way to the city mills and on its way back from milling.

This was the case in 14th century Spain (Valencia) (Glick and Martínez 2006, 201), and the Lima Cabildo specifically based its system on Spanish traditions (LCL 30.IV.1553).23

Millers had more deceptive methods than direct theft, and these practices are partially to blame for the bad reputation the profession endured throughout Europe for centuries, especially in popular folklore (Thompson 1971, 103-104). For example, one particularly

“evil” miller in 14th century Valencia stole grain from his clients by replacing their high quality wheat with lower quality grain; he was also accused of moistening the grain so that the flour would look fuller (Glick and Martínez 2006, 201). The fee or tax paid to the miller for grinding grain was another point of conflict. In Spain this was regulated at either the town council or kingdom level (Glick and Martínez 2006; Mateos Royo 2011).

In some locations the fee was raised during droughts and the summer dry season

(González Tascón and Vázquez de la Cueva 1993, 39).

Flows of both water and grain are best observed at moments when their smooth flow is interrupted. These are points at which governance can occur, termed here

“moments of governance,” in other words, moments at which a governing body or other form of social institution steps in to settle disputes, enforce regulations, or otherwise control a situation. The relationships between environmental resource flows and environmental resource governance practices are apparent at such times, and often a

23 Refer to note #26 for information on citation of Cabildo documents.

72 technology provides the focus of the flow interruption and governance (and management) intervention. Therefore, these “moments of governance” form my focus for analysis of mill functioning, and the related interactions and conflicts.

All of the features and potential conflicts/interactions described above can be observed for mills in colonial Lima. Here, mills were constructed along the Rímac River and along major irrigation and urban canals. Mills were constructed in rows, and with multiple sets of millstones (Cobo 1935 [1639]). Colonial authorities legally mandated millers’ rights to water, yet millers still quarreled among themselves and with other water users. Millers were accused of grain theft, measurement fraud, and substituting rotten wheat for good wheat, and the municipal government sought to control these problems.

Overall, it was through the types of water and grain-based interactions described above that mills influenced social, political, economic, and legal institutions and processes related to resource access. The Lima mills also highlight new issues not observed in their

European counterparts. These have to do with the specific geography (natural and social) of Lima, as well as the governance structures set up in the Peruvian Viceroyalty. The following presents the history of milling in colonial Lima, focusing on where and when mills were built, by whom, and the water and grain conflicts that resulted from their use.

Background: Empirical Data on the Construction and Use of Lima Gristmills

Mill Construction: 1540-1700

Bernabé Cobo’s description of Lima mills provides a good starting point:

The majority of these canals are derived from a bigger one [the Santa Clara canal]...At all times this canal carries a strong flow of water, so gristmills with three or four wheels can mill at once, and in its course through the city there are five mills, each with three or four stones, and there are stones that grind more than one hundred fanegas of wheat in a day and night. Apart from this canal, two smaller ones are drawn from the river as it passes through the city: one is for the Aliaga mill, which is right next to the bridge,and this mill and canal are about the same age as the city....

73 Along the third canal there are three more mills..and after flowing out of the city these canals irrigate many fields and crops.

On the other side of the river in the San Lázaro neighborhood runs another canal of the same size, which turns another gristmill with three stones and the powder mills, and which irrigates many orchards and fields, and so there are nine gristmills in the city, without counting the many others in the surroundings. These mills started only a little bit after the city was populated, and the residents divided the heridos and [mill] sites among themselves, in the same way they divided the solares (Cobo 1935 [1639], 57-58).24

This Jesuit chronicler explained the situation in Lima of the 1630s, highlighting features familiar after the discussion above. These include multiple mills located along irrigation canals and mills with multiple sets of millstones. He also emphasized both the urban focus of milling and that mills were installed shortly after the foundation of the city, as well as alluded to water rights (heridos) and their distribution. In addition, Cobo (1935

[1639], 58) described the first petition to build a mill in Lima: Francisco de Ampuero, a city founder, obtained permission to build the first mill on 26 July 1540, for which he was to pay the Cabildo a dozen pairs of black hens each year for annual festivals.25 As reference, wheat was said to have been introduced to Lima in 1535 (Cobo 1956 [1653],

407), but only became widely available between 1540-1549 (Chapter 4).

The historical source that provides the most complete record of where and when mills were built, as well as their ownership, is the Libros de Cabildos de Lima (the books of the city council of Lima, hereafter LCL).26 Prospective millers were required to obtain

24 Some definitions are helpful: the Santa Clara canal was also known as the Huatica Canal (see also note #28). An herido was the water connection for a mill (see note #27). A solar was a land grant of city blocks/portions of city blocks to important residents, made by the Cabildo. 25 This reference made by Cobo to the first mill is very specific, but it is problematic because it is the only reference to the Ampuero mill, which is not mentioned in existing Cabildo archives. Perhaps a license was awarded but the mill was never built; here it is considered as not constructed. 26 This historical source is described in detail in Chapter 1. The citation style used here follows that applied in Gutiérrez (2005); references is to the date of the Cabildo meeting (e.g., LCL Day.Month (Roman Numeral), Year). While it may seem unconventional to parenthetically cite historical documents in this way, the citation actually assists in the reading of the document/information, as it is the date when the issue was discussed. As will be shown throughout this dissertation, both the month and the year of Cabildo discussions have significance for understanding technology, environmental flows and governance strategies. Other archives used were the Historical Archive of the Municipality of Lima (AHML), Archive

74 licenses from the Cabildo before building their mills, and the LCL record many, although

not all of these petitions. The license was actually for a herido, which was the water

connection of the mill.27 The Cabildo was also in charge of administrating mill activities.

It heard and resolved complaints about infractions in water use or about grain measurement and quality. In addition, the Cabildo set the official fee paid to millers (the maquila), by all clients seeking to mill grain. Given this range of ways that the Cabildo regulated milling, the LCL provide a listing of most, although perhaps not all, of the mills

that existed in Lima during the colonial period. For the period of interest, 1540-1700,

there are references to forty-six different mills. Table 2.1 contains this list, as well as key

information about each mill and its owner. These references fall into three main phases,

which were defined by significant gaps between new mill references (Figure 2.6): Phase

1: 1540-1561, fourteen new mills referenced; Phase 2: 1574-1643, twenty-four new mills

referenced; and, Phase 3: 1670-1698, eight new mills referenced.

During Phase 1 fourteen new mills were referenced, of which eleven were

definitely installed (the other three had successful petitions, but it is not clear whether the

mills were ever built). In general, construction during this twenty-one year period set the

spatial pattern for future mill construction and use. Apart from the uncertain mention of

Ampuero’s mill by Cobo (Cobo 1935 [1639]), the first mill definitely constructed was

that of Avendaño, which is mentioned as already existing in Palomino’s 1544 petition

(LCL 7.VII.1544, 14.VII.1544). Avendaño’s mill (#3) was located on the banks of the

of the Archbishopric of Lima (AAL) and the National Archive of Peru (AGN) (Document codes and folio numbers are included in footnotes after each reference in the text). 27 Herido: cut or diversion of water from a river or canal, small drainage canal, or concession for the use of water (see also Fernández Tejedo, Endfield, and O'Hara 2004). The physical/material and legal aspects of this right are inseparable in documents on colonial Lima. No references to licensing fees are included in any of the petitions.

75 Rímac River, slightly upstream from the Plaza Mayor or city center (see map in Figure

2.7); and Palomino planned to build his mill (#2) slightly upstream from Avendaño’s (in

Palomino’s case the petition was successful, but there were no further references to the

mill so it is not clear if it was ever built). The third mill mentioned, and one which would

go on to cause great controversy, is that of Geronimo de Aliaga (#4), located on the

riverbank immediately downstream of where the stone bridge crossing the river would be

constructed (bridge completed 1610). Figure 2.7 maps the location of the mills built

between 1544-1561 that I was able to locate using documentary descriptions (28 of 46

were located). During this period most mills were built along the riverbank, presumably

using weirs that directed water to canals serving one or several mills, which drained

directly back into the river. This location was near the Plaza Mayor, the heart of the city, as well as the location of the municipal granary, called the Alhóndiga (Chapter 4). A few mills were built along a major canal, likely of pre-Hispanic origin, which crossed the eastern edge of the city. This canal was later known as the Huatica canal, and so this name will be applied here.28 These mills drew water from the Huatica canal and immediately drained back into it.

Significantly, all of the mill owners during this initial phase were among the city’s founders, or otherwise the most illustrious and powerful members of Lima society.

Seven of the fourteen owners were either regidores (city council members) or alcaldes ordinarios (mayors); two held important posts at the Real Audiencia (highest level court in Peru); and one owner was (likely) Francisco Pizarro, leader of the conquistadores and

28 The name "Huatica" is not found in documents until the 18th century, however it is the name this canal is best known by, and is still the popular name for this canal, even though the canal has long been diverted underground. In the 15th and 16th century the canal went by various names, including "the city canal" ("la acequia de la ciudad") or "Santa Clara canal" ("la acequia de Santa Clara"), because it passed the Santa Clara Monastery.

76 the first governor of the colony. The mill sites awarded to these men were usually located within the solares they already held. Many of the mill petitions actually refer to proposed construction on the solares that had previously been awarded. During this phase, installing a mill in Lima and elsewhere was viewed as part of being an encomendero, or member of the landowning class of important men (Lockhart 1994, 36-

37). The final mill of Phase 1 was owned by La Merced, an important religious order.

The Mercedarians were a non-mendicant order that allowed its friars to own property and participate in commercial activities. It arrived early on, owned encomiendas, and had commercial interests throughout Peru, making it unsurprising that they were among the original mill owners in Lima (Lockhart 1994).

Of this group of early mills, two in particular deserve further attention: Geronimo de Aliaga’s mill (1548) and Geronimo de Silva’s mill (1561) (refer to map in Figure 2.7,

Mill #4 [Aliaga] and #14 [Silva]). These two mills exemplify the early stage of mill construction: they were built by the most prominent members of Lima society, and they remained in use for almost the entire period of interest. In the intervening period both were passed down through their respectively families by marriage and inheritance, although Silva’s mill would eventually be sold. Additionally, both mills were involved in significant disputes related to water. Their locations are also indicative of broader patterns: Aliaga’s mill was located as described above, on the riverbank near the bridge and Silva’s mill was located on the Huatica canal.

Phase 2 showed steady construction of new mills over a longer period, with reference to twenty-four new mills between 1574-1644. During this time several new trends occurred. The first was in the location of new mills (see map in Figure 2.8). All

77 of the new mills were located on the outer edges of the urban core, and most were located

along the Huatica Canal. During this period, one stretch of the Huatica canal even came

to be known as “the big mill canal” (“la acequia grande de los molinos,” LCL

30.III.1609). Others were located at the head of the Maranga/Magdalena/Legua canal, another irrigation canal drawn from the Rímac River, just downstream from the city center. Still others were built across the river in the San Lázaro (Rímac) neighborhood.

This shift in mill location seems to indicate two processes. The first is that the best spots to build a mill near to the riverbank in the city center were already taken, although, as the city expanded in the late 16th century (Bromley and Barbagelata 1945, 63), these new locations remained fairly centralized. The second relates to some of the major problems faced by the early mills with respect to the seasonal increases in river flow, erosion, and the destruction of millraces by flooding. Mills constructed along the canal were more protected and counted on a steadier flow of water. Relatedly, during the period 1560-

1627 the majority of the city’s levees were constructed (Chapter 3), and this may have made it difficult to construct additional weirs and millraces that would have had to cut through the levees and likely destabilize them.

Ownership patterns show significant changes during the second phase as well.

While city councilmen and mayors still made up some of the mill ownership, during this period a more diverse group emerged, including religious orders, lawyers, teachers, accountants, carpenters, masons, and widows. During this period the first sales of already constructed mills occurred, and mills were inherited by descendants of previous owners. It is also important to mention that in between these two phases, Viceroy

Francisco de Toledo was appointed (1569-1581). He was famous for introducing a series

78 of overarching reforms that organized and centralized colonial government in Peru

(Toledo 1986[1568-1574]). Among these were ordinances for milling, which were

written for several different Peruvian cities, including Lima. Toledo’s biggest influence

on Lima mills was in the area of mills and riverbank management. His reforms did not

directly impact mill ownership, but they potentially influenced mill placement (discussed

below).

Following our two highlighted mills –– Aliaga and Silva –– during the period

1570-1643 we see that Aliaga’s mill was first passed to his grandson, Don Geronimo

Aliaga de los Rios, by 1606 (LCL 1.XII.1606), and then passed to Aliaga de los Rios’

daughter, Doña Ventura de Aliaga by 1641.29 The inheritance of Silva’s mill is a bit more complicated. It was passed first to his wife, Doña Maria de Ribera, who was widowed in 1574 (Lohmann Villena 1983, 302). She then left it to her son Don Luis

Mendoza de Ribera around 1606 (by her second husband Juan de Mendoza) (LCL

6.III.1606). Mendoza de Ribera sold the mill to the Jesuits (Noviciado de la Compañia de Jesus) in 1608 (LCL 11.VII.1608), however he immediately petitioned the Cabildo to construct a new mill, just upstream from his old one (LCL 30.III.1609).

Phase 3, 1670-1696, was characterized not by new mill construction (only eight new mills were mentioned), but by mill closure. Of the eight new mills, it was only possible to locate two (map in Figure 2.9). The remaining six were referenced as part of an official complaint by they city’s millers to the Cabildo (see below), and the names listed as millers may not actually be owners, but rather renters (unfortunately there is no additional information on these individuals). The two mills that it is possible to locate followed the trends introduced above, they were constructed further outwards from the

29 AAL- Capítulos Lima - Legajo 11, Expediente 3, f.7, 13 January 1641

79 urban core, this time along the Huatica Canal as it flowed out of the urbanized area into the irrigated fields surrounding the city. Mill closure was instead the defining characteristic of this period. During the miller complaint of 1672, the millers –– who protested the low income they received for milling in contrast to the high costs required to stay in operation –– referenced that at least three mills had recently been forced to close because of declining profit (LCL 10.III.1672). Among these, were our highlighted mills: Aliaga’s mill, had been passed from Doña Ventura Aliaga to her son Don Juan de

Aliaga y Sotomayor, and was closed by 1672; Don Luis Mendoza de Ribera’s mill (the second one) was passed to his son Don Joseph de Mendoza (by 1644) and was also out of service by 1672. The Jesuit mill was also closed by this date. The end of the 17th century did not mark the end of milling in Lima, but it did end the era of mills being owned by the most powerful and influential families. This period was also characterized by a general decline in mill profits, as well as several “crises” of milling, discussed in detail below.

The only illustrations of colonial mills in Peru are by Bishop Don Balthasar Jaime

Martinez de Compañón, and come from the Trujillo region of the late 18th century

(Martínez Compañón 1782-1789). These drawings show horizontal water-wheel mills of two varieties: gristmills and ore mills (Figures 2.10, 2.11). The ore mills used the same type of water wheel, and their diagrams show methods of water connection as well as mills in rows (Figures 2.12, 2.13). There are only two currently known physical mill remains in Lima. The first is the Santa Clara mill, of which remains the ornate early 20th century millhouse (Figure 2.14). The second are a set of undated remains located on the riverbank near the Plaza Mayor and Palacio de Gobierno, in what is now the City Wall

80 Park (Parque de la Muralla)30 (Figure 2.15). This mill structure contains two

wheelhouses, and thus was a mill with multiple stones, like those described by Cobo (see

above). Although its date is unknown, this structure provides physical evidence that

mills of the horizontal water-wheel variety were constructed along the banks of the

Rimac, near the center of the city (in the zone of mills #2 and #3 on map in Figure 2.7).

“Corriente y Moliente” - Normal Mill Operation

“Corriente y moliente” is a Spanish expression that means “normal” or “working

without problem,” which derived from a classification applied to gristmills in operation,

functioning normally and well (Corriente = running, Moliente = milling). In Lima,

normal mill operation changed little over the course of the entire period. As stated above,

the first stage was application to the Cabildo for a license for a herido –– this was the first

“moment of governance” relevant for mills. A typical petition indicated where the mill was to be built and how it could impact surrounding mills and properties. Before determining whether to grant a license, the Cabildo usually conducted a site inspection, sometimes by the Juez de Aguas (the Water Judge appointed by the Cabildo, see Chapter

3), or an engineer. City carpenters were in charge of building the mills; some exams for carpentry licenses even included knowledge of gristmill construction (LCL 4.II.1633).

Once the mill was corriente y moliente, the owner usually rented it out to millers who were in charge of the day-to-day operation. Rental contracts were for one or several years. They included the mill with all of its tools, as well as conditions indicating that

30 Archaeologist Miguel Fhon, director of the Casa Bodega y Cuadra archaeological site, graciously provided access to and information about these remains. Workman at the Bodega y Cuadra site observed to Fhon that previously there had been more remains of this type in the area (they were destroyed by the construction of a new housing development). Lima's city wall was planned in the 1680s and was constructed and operational only at the very end of the period analyzed here.

81 rent not change based on increases/decreases in miller fees, or by water cuts or shortages.31 These millers hired majordomos or assistants and used African slaves to do the actual labor. Labor included adding grain to the hopper, collecting flour as it was ground, and supervising the millwheel and stones. It was not physically difficult work, but it entailed constant attention, as mills ran day and night. Routine work also involved millrace maintenance and cleaning. Millers were responsible for transporting the grain from the owners to the mill and returning the ground flour. Finally, milling was carried out daily, but was prohibited on Sundays and holidays.

Mills did not always function as intended, and there were certain areas where similar problems were repeated time and again. Some of these were literally structural issues, as they had to do with conflicts between the specific mill technologies used, the layout of the city, and the direction of flows of water and grain. These can only be understood from a spatial perspective. The following sections discuss the major conflicts related to flows of water and flows of grain.

“Every miller draws water to his own mill”: Interactions and Conflicts in Flows of Water through Mills

Natural Streams and Riverbank Erosion

The Spanish located Lima along the banks of the Rímac, which is a river that exhibits strong seasonal variation: it runs full from October to April, due to rains and ice/snowmelt in its highland sources, and in the highland dry season, May-September, the river carries much less water (See Figure 1.3, Chapter 1). This seasonality was an important aspect of agricultural production in colonial Lima (discussed in Chapter 3), and

31 For example: AAL- Causas Civiles, Legajo 108, Expediente 27, 10 September 1672

82 also affected milling. One mill petition referred to the “seven months of summer when

there is abundant water,” during which time milling was possible (LCL 30.XII.1670).

Another miller explained that there are “two months each year that by ordinance the mills

do not mill, in order to clean the canals.”32 This miller also mentioned that water flow was frequently too low to power the mills at planting times, because irrigators used the water upstream from the mills (discussed below, section “Multiple water users...”). In addition, he called attention to the other major seasonal concern: the high water flow events or avulsion floods called avenidas that threatened to damage the urban riverbank between the months of November and February (see also Chapter 3). In these cases, the swiftly flowing river could carry away the weirs and intake canals directing water to the millraces, causing “many days without milling.”33 (This and other interactions and conflicts related to water use for milling, as well as the “moments” of governance or points at which the Cabildo intervened in the flow of water are diagrammed in Figure

2.16.)

While riverbank mills were vulnerable to river flow changes, they also caused their own damages. Their weirs, intakes, and feeder canals eroded the fragile riverbank causing much concern, and leading to many municipal fines. This was especially evident in Phase 1 of mill construction when the majority of mills were located on the riverbank.

For instance, the Aliaga mill, whose millstream was apparently fairly lengthy, eroded the riverbank and caused the Cabildo considerable worry over the course of several months in 1552 (LCL 6.V.1552, 27.V.1552, 30.V.1552, 8.VI.1552, 4.XI.1552). Upon identifying the problem, the Cabildo first ordered the Aliaga family to repair the mill and the

32 AAL- Capítulos Lima - Legajo 11-Expediente 3- f.15r 33 ibid

83 damages it had caused, threatening to cut its water if the repairs were not completed

within a certain period. After a Cabildo inspection found the repairs insufficient, it sent

in the city’s official engineer (alarife de la ciudad) and a workman to inspect the

situation and determine a solution.34 Similar problems were apparently being caused by other Lima millers, because in 1578 Viceroy Toledo dedicated a special ordinance to

Lima millers along the riverbank (Toledo 1986[1568-1574], 397).35 He declared millers

responsible for all damages to the riverbank from their millraces, and required them to

repair their mills in such a way that the yearly avenidas did not cause damage. The

Cabildo was responsible for enforcing this ordinance (LCL 20.X.1578), and it reserved

the right to cut off the water connection to any mill that damaged the riverbank (LCL

25.I.1583).

Later, after the construction of extensive levees to protect the urban riverbank and

the Huatica canal intake (construction of levees: 1560-1627, see Chapter 3), millers, as

parties interested in both protection by the levees and use of water from the canal, were

required to contribute funds to their maintenance. The Aliaga mill was cited for this

responsibility several times during the 1620s (LCL 11.X.1622, 30.VIII.1623,

11.VIII.1626). For instance, in 1622 Don Geronimo de Aliaga was required to contribute

to the fees and food for Indians who did the manual labor (LCL 11.X.1622). While mills

throughout the city faced seasonal water shortages, mills on the riverbank were faced

with these additional risks and regulations. This may explain why most riverbank mills

34 Later, in 1568, the Aliaga mill, and specifically the levees and walls built to protect the riverbank from this mill were found to be directing flow in such a way as to threaten the stability of the newly constructed municipal levee. Again, the Cabildo sent the city engineer to inspect and decide appropriate action (LCL 12.I.1568). 35 Ordenanza #81, "Ordenanza para que los dueños de molinos cercanos al rio Rímac reparen su sector ribereño para evitar inundaciones."

84 were built in Phase 1, while more protected locations along large urban canals were

favored during Phase 2 and later.

Multiple water users along urban canals

As Cobo’s description of Lima mills indicates, there were several canals drawn

from the Rímac River that fed the city and powered its mills. Initially these canals were

used for drinking water, however after the installation of the municipal pipe system

(beginning 1578, see Chapter 3), they were mainly used for irrigation, cleaning/sewage,

and milling. There were three major canals important for urban milling (refer to map in

Figures 2.7-2.9): the Huatica Canal, the very upper portion of the Maranga/Magdalena/

Legua canal, and the Pie del Cerro canal.36

Mills shared the main urban canals with other water users. Irrigation was the

primary use of all water in Lima and its surroundings and this was closely controlled and

hotly contested (Chapter 3). While the irrigators were physically distant from the main

urban mills –– located mostly in the fields directly surrounding the city and up to 10-15

km away from the central plaza –– their water use interacted with milling in at least two

important ways. First, even though the amount each irrigation canal was allowed to

extract from the river was carefully defined (Domínguez 1988), at times millers

complained that canals with intakes upstream from theirs took too much water and left

less flow for them.37 This was worst at time of planting, from April through June

(Cerdán de Landa 1828, 70-71), which also coincided with the beginning of the dry

36 There were twelve irrigation canals or "valleys" in the immediate vicinity of Lima (in order from upstream to downstream): Ate, Surco, Lurigancho, Huatica, Amancaes, Barrio Nuevo, Pie del Cerro, Arna- puquio, Boca Negra, Maranga, Magdalena, and Legua (Domínguez 1988, 133). (See map in Figure 3.1, and discussion in Chapter 3). 37 For example: miller Espinossa in 1643, AAL-Capítulos Lima - Legajo 11, Expediente 3.

85 season and decreased water flow in general. As the miller Pedro Espinossa explained,

millers attempted to work around this by milling at night and on Sundays and holidays,

times during which Spanish irrigators were not allowed to use water (see also Toledo

1986[1568-1574]; Domínguez 1988, 135). Thus irrigation affected milling seasonally, as

well as on daily and weekly cycles. Second, the canals used for milling were also used

for irrigation downstream from mills. For example, the canal used by the Monteserrate

and Pastrana mills (see map Figure 2.8, Mills #35 and 32) went on to irrigate fields in the

Maranga, Magdalena and Legua valleys. This did not usually cause conflict, because the

mills used but did not consume the water; in this case it was only important that the mill

water was returned to the original canal and continued flowing towards the fields.

All of the different users of a canal were termed “interested parties”

(“interesados”) and each was charged a percentage of the overall cost for canal maintenance, organized by the Cabildo. This was especially true for users of the Huatica

Canal, which was cleaned on an annual basis; but it was also relevant for smaller, occasional projects and on other canals. Such was the case in 1622 when Aliaga had to pay for Indian labor to repair the levee and canal intake (LCL 11.X.1622). For this same

repair, the irrigators of the Magdalena, Huatica, and Maranga valleys were also required

to pay for Indian workdays and meals. The irrigators, though distant from the riverbank

and levee, paid more than the millers and other riverbank property owners: not only were

they a bigger group, but they had a relatively greater interest in the water.

While relationships with irrigators describe allocation of water at a regional scale,

water users also interacted locally, especially when they were direct neighbors. For

example, when priest Gregorio Montero wanted to extend his property in the Santa

86 Catalina neighborhood, up until the drainage canal of the Merced mill (#8), he proposed

to also build a containment wall to more carefully canalize the water. The Cabildo

commissioned an official inspection of his proposal, which determined that the new

containment wall, as planned, would not cause problems to the mill upstream.

Specifically, it would be located far enough downstream that the wall would not be able

to influence the water flow in such as away as to make its current switch direction and

flow upstream, thus interfering with mill operation. With this petition, inspection, and

licensing process we see that the water rights of previously existing mills were closely

considered and protected when new projects were proposed.

Mills also shared canals with one another. Figures 2.7-2.9 map several clusters of

mills in different parts of the city, the largest concentration being along the Huatica canal.

These mills generally coexisted peacefully. For example, on the north side of the river, in

the San Lázaro neighborhood, there were two gristmills (Francisco de San Pedro, #29 and

Antonio de Saz, #33) and one gunpowder mill (Pedro del Castillo, not mapped) that

shared the “Pie del Cerro” canal apparently without conflict (Canseco 1988 [1617]). Juan

Garcia de Otalora’s mill (#37) was later built on this canal;38 still later, the San Lázaro hospital was given permission to use the water that passed through these mills (LCL

14.IX.1657).

However, disputes did occur, and so the Cabildo tried to regulate milling in such a way as to avoid conflict. In general when petitions were submitted to the Cabildo to build new mills, either the petition or the Cabildo inspection specified the relationship between the new mill and existing mills, and whether the new mill would damage the older mill in any way. For example, the Cabildo inspection of Jorge Docte’s (#20)

38 ibid

87 proposed mill site found that his construction would actually benefit the other mills and

neighbors in general because it would cause the water level in the canal to decrease

slightly, lowering the overall risk of flooding in the area (LCL 7.VIII.1578). Francisco

Xuara’s petition for a herido was also checked by the Cabildo, and after a site visit it was found that if the water were returned to the canal after passing through the mill, it would not threaten any third parties (LCL 13.IX.1574).

A more complicated case was that of Don Luis Mendoza de Ribera’s second mill

(#30). Before granting permission, the Cabildo commissioned the city engineers to undertake a site inspection. They found that the proposed mill would not damage either the mill upstream or the mill downstream. The mill upstream was far enough away that the water tank that would be part of Mendoza’s new mill would not reach it; specifically it would not cause water to back up in the canal and submerge the mill wheels

(“sobreagualle los rodeznos”) (LCL 30.III.1609). The mill below, that of the Jesuits, would not be damaged because its wheels were located far enough downstream that they would not be submerged. In 1613, an official complaint was brought against Mendoza’s mill –– now constructed and functioning –– by the Casa de la Caridad (a Church and

Hospital specializing in charity to the poor). The Caridad wanted Mendoza’s mill torn down and rebuilt in a different manner, claiming that the mill was currently flooding its property. While this case, heard by the Archbishop’s Court, was left without a resolution, as evidence of his innocence, Mendoza referred to his official Cabildo license and its terms.39

Later in 1644, the current owner of the Mendoza mill, Don Joseph de Mendoza y

Costilla, (grandson of Don Luis), submitted a complaint that a new construction upstream

39 AAL- Causas Civiles- Legajo 14 - Expediente 37 - Year 1613

88 by the nuns of the Concepcíon monastery rerouted his canal and decreased the amount of water delivered to his mill. Because of this new construction, the interests of his mill

“would be ruined and lost totally.”40 In his testimony he referred to the long-term possession of the mill by his family, and the subsequent rights to the water that should be respected. The representative of the Concepcion monastery countered that the water level had lowered because the canal channel had filled with sediment, since the interested parties had not cleaned it in several years. The Archbishopric Court determined that an official inspection was required, with Don Joseph, the Abbess of the Monastery and a city engineer. The document does not record the conclusion of the case, but it certainly gives a picture of the back-and-forth style disputes between neighbors involving mills and water use. In this case, perhaps the difficulty in reaching a decision was influenced by the fact that both interested parties, the Monastery and the Mendoza family, were very powerful residents of the city, and neither “trumped” the other.

Canals, Urban Circulation, Bridges, and Grain Carts

The examples discussed above highlight geographies of canal flow that are urban based: the canals wound through urban properties and many residents and interested parties were located in close proximity to one another. Since mills were located within the central part of the city, there were a host of additional interactions and conflicts that were mainly based on urban circulation (pedestrian and cart) and related aspects of infrastructure and the built environment.

Much of Lima’s traffic was pedestrian. Mill canals, like other urban canals, were difficult and potentially even dangerous to cross, and therefore bridges were needed.

40 AAL- Causas Civiles -Legajo 56 Expediente 11 - Year 1644

89 This was a perpetual problem that affected all members of Lima society, including fashionable ladies who would get the tips of their elegant shoes wet when jumping over the streams (Prince 1992[1890], 10). Bridge construction was of greatest concern in the heavily populated neighborhood around the Huatica Canal. Perhaps the most dramatic of these bridges was that ordered built by the viceroy himself. In 1602, Viceroy Don Luis de Velasco ordered, in consultation with the Water Judge Andrés Sánchez, that two bridges be built of brick and lime over the part of the Huatica canal that passed through the Merced mill (#8). The order stated that many people in the neighborhood lacked a good way to cross the canal: they “pass on narrow planks with much risk” (LCL

14.X.1602). The engineers estimated the work would cost 650 pesos, the neighborhood residents were charged, and the Cabildo was tasked with supervising the project. In the same session of the Cabildo, it was also determined that the bridge crossing the drainage canal of the Mendoza de Ribera mill (#14) needed repair. The Water Judge was put in control, and told to charge the interested parties. In 1607, 1630, and 1637 the Cabildo, through the person of the Water Judge, supervised at least three additional bridge constructions and repairs on the Huatica Canal, in the neighborhood of the Merced Mill

(#8) (LCL 1.VII.1607, 19.VII.1630 5.VI.1637). Bridges were the responsibility of the

Cabildo. Even when the viceroy himself entered the discussion, the Cabildo, and specifically the Water Judge (Cabildo-appointed), carried out the work. In all cases, the interested parties were charged at prorated amounts.

Road traffic by animals (horses, mules, donkeys) and the carts they pulled represented another potential conflict. Lima was set up as a grid, and by 1613 counted six long “straight streets” (calles derechas), which ran the length of the city east-west,

90 and about twice as many shorter “transverse streets” (calles traviesas), which ran north- south (Bromley 2005, 122-23). Apart from these, highways (caminos reales) that linked

Lima with other important places entered the city, joining with the urban grid (map in

Figure 2.17). This grid was not designed and constructed with thought to the orientation of the pre-existing canals (especially the Huatica, which was likely of prehispanic origin), and hence there was a structural conflict when road traffic intersected the canals (Ramón personal communication, 2011). In 1620 the Cabildo estimated that there was at least one canal (however small and derivative) for each city block (LCL 9.III.1620). It was a notorious problem that animal and cart traffic crossed over canals –– with or without bridges –– and damaged them, causing water to spill out of its channel and flood streets.

While this was a general problem, it directly affected milling since grain was delivered to and from the mills in heavy carts or by mules, with obvious and ample opportunity for canal crossings. The problem reached such a point that the Viceroy Don Luis de Velasco took notice, and presented a provision to the Cabildo that specifically called attention to mill carts. The viceroy mandated the specific routes to be followed by traffic going to different sectors of the city that he designed to avoid canal crossings (see also discussion of grain interactions and conflicts in the next section; and diagram in Figure 2.18). These ordinances were created through a joint report from a Judge of the Real Audiencia

(Doctor Juan Fernandez de Recalde) and two regidores (Simon Luis de Lucio and

General Hernan Carrillo de Cordoba). This surprising and uncommon cooperation between the viceregal and municipal governments indicates the severity of the situation.

The Cabildo was placed in charge of enforcing the ordinances. Fines for infractions were

91 assessed by the Water Judge, in consultation with city engineers, and dedicated to canal repairs (LCL 23.III.1600).

Mill canals also damaged streets, causing problems with traffic flow. These were called “malos pasos,” literally “bad crossings” (LCL 17.IV.1551). For instance, in 1631 the draingage of the Mendoza mill (#30) broke, causing water to flow into the street, and the Cabildo to order repairs from city funds (LCL 28.VII.1631). In 1643, the renter of

Don Andres de las Ynfantas’ mill (#38) petitioned the Cabildo for a license to rebuild the mill drainage, since the original drainage was poorly constructed and the mill was flooding neighboring houses and preventing traffic flow. The Cabildo sent a city engineer because the drainage would have to be constructed down the middle of a street.

The engineer specified that the new drainage canal be built of river stones and a lime and sand mixture to prevent damage to the road (LCL 11.XII.1643). Overall, both canals and street traffic were necessary aspects of urban life, but unfortunately their often-conflicting orientations made for muddy streets and interrupted water flow.

“Safe as a thief in a mill”: Interactions and Conflicts in Flows of Grain through Mills

There were three basic conflicts related to flows of grain. These were the maquila

(fee paid to millers per unit of grain milled), the weighing and measuring of grain, and the contamination or corruption of good quality grain. The maquila, however, can be seen as the root of the other two problems. The Cabildo and/or Viceroy set the official maquila, sometimes called the molienda, which was the fee that all clients were required to pay to the miller for each fanega of grain milled. The fanega was both a volumetric/capacity and weight unit of measurement most commonly used for grain,

92 approximately equivalent to 55.5 liters or 43 kilograms.41 In the 1550s the Cabildo set

the first maquila. A municipal ordinance from 20 November 1551 stated that the maquila

was to be 1
tomines, reduced from 2 tomines, because wheat had become abundant and

cheaper, and so milling prices should also decline.42 This was decreased in 1553 to 1 t,

with the extra  t being applied towards the salaries of cartmen and the official inspector

of weights/measurements (see below). In 1554 the millers petitioned to raise the maquila

back to 2 t, and in general millers often complained of low fees, and petitioned to raise

their prices. In 1594 Viceroy Don Garcia Hurtado de Mendoza, the second Marques de

Cañete, set the official maquila at 2
r, with  r to be used to pay for the weight

inspector and for maintenance of the official weights, measures, and scales (leaving the

millers 2  r) (LCL v.12 Appendix, p. 686). (This and other interactions and conflicts

related to grain/flour, as well as the “moments” of governance or points at which the

Cabildo intervened in the flow of grain/flour are diagrammed in Figure 2.18).

While this issue was not often addressed in the Cabildo, the maquila was a

longstanding point of conflict between millers and bakers, who were the primary mill

clients. In 1672, the millers petitioned to raise the maquila from what was currently

being paid (1 r) to the 2 set by the Viceroy Hurtado de Mendoza (referring explicitly

to his 1594 ordinance) (LCL 10.III.1672, 14.III.1672). Eventually the Cabildo conceded

slightly to the millers, raising the rate to 1
r (LCL 28.VI.1672). By the end of the

century it would be raised again, in both 1692 and 1704 Cabildo ordinances listed the

41 For a description of the fanega and other Spanish measurement units see: http://www- personal.umich.edu/~dfrye/fanega.htm 42 Colonial currencies exhibited some variability. The tomin (t) was an early currency basically equivalent to the real (r), which became the most common unit. One peso (p) was made up of eight reales (although there were also pesos of 9 reales). Units of
and  real were also common.

93 maquila at 2
r, including grain pickup and flour delivery.43 One hundred years later,

millers were still complaining. They were then receiving 2 r and wished to receive 2  r,

according to the same 16th century viceregal ordinance.44 While this variation may seem slight, the 1795 millers estimated that 483 fanegas of wheat were ground daily, making the difference in income 15 p/day if the maquila was increased by  r. A conservative calculation of milling days/year (10 months not including Sundays/holidays) makes the total annual difference in income approximately 3,500 p, divided between all millers.

Unfortunately, we do not have similar estimates for daily amounts milled in the 16th-17th centuries.

Another important aspect of the maquila was what exactly the miller’s fee included. In theory it was supposed to cover milling as well as grain pickup and flour delivery, for which the miller either maintained his own mules or hired the official city cartman (acareador). This was a point of conflict for millers because of its obvious added expense. Also, part of the maquila was taken to pay the city’s official weights and measures inspector (see above and below). Finally, a brief comparison with Cuzco, the other major city in Peru in the 16th century, adds an additional detail. In 1672, Viceroy

Toledo set Cuzco’s maquila at 3 p for the months of May-November (dry period) and 2 p from December - April (rainy season).45 While he did not make any similar seasonal ordinance for Lima, nor did anyone else, the concept is interesting and comparable to that from Spain (discussed above). In Lima, of course, milling was most likely suspended, or

43 AHML-Tesorería-Propios-Arbitrios-1692-1840-1-1; AGN - GC2-22-4-1704-f.3r, see also rising wheat prices in 1692 in Chapter 4. 44 AGN- Pl24 45 Note pesos instead of reales referenced in Cuzco.

94 at least declined sharply, for two months of the year during the dry season (also described above).

Measurement fraud, resulting in grain theft, was the second common grain conflict, and perhaps was a response by millers to what they viewed as unfairly low maquilas. Millers were supposed to return the same weight of milled flour as they received in grain, however many clients complained of sacks being returned lighter or less full, with the implication that millers were stealing. Like the maquila, this was a problem very early on, and one the Cabildo tried to regulate from nearly the first years mills existed. In 1549 a complaint about general disorder in mills prompted the Cabildo to call a meeting of all the mill owners and millers (“señores de molinos”) to organize the method used to measure grain across the city (LCL 2.I.1549). (Note that in 1549 this would have been approximately four mills).

Continuing complaints throughout 1551-1553 prompted a series of Cabildo meetings to discuss the problem of grain fraud, resulting in the institution of the

Cabildo’s ideal method, for controlling grain at each phase of its processing. Clients were first required to have their grain weighed by the city’s official weight/measurement inspector (“fiel de peso”), and then a special cartman would transport the grain from the weigh station to the mill. This method prevented millers from using the excuse that “the black, slave, Indian, servant or other person who transported it [the grain] caused the loss” (LCL 27.XI.1551). The salaries for the weight inspector and cartman were to be paid from a portion of the maquila (LCL 20.III.1553 and see above). Further steps were soon added to the official system. After the official weighing, the weights inspector would sew the grain sack shut and add an official city seal, the millers would check the

95 sealed sack upon its arrival to the mill, then mill the grain, weigh the flour, reseal the sack

and send it back to the weight inspector, who would in turn re-check the seal and weight

(LCL 30.VI.1553). This method ensured that any missing grain would be because the

“black or Indian who transported it [the sack] opened it on the way” (LCL 30.VI.1553).

An ordinance from Emperor Carlos V published in Lima in 1553, further stated that each mill was to have a scale to weigh grain, that millers were to weight grain upon receipt and delivery, and that they were required to have extra grain stockpiled to add to any sack that was found to be underweight. The fines set were set at 100 p for not having a scale, and 10 p for each time the miller was caught without an extra store of grain (LCL Vol. 11

Appendix p. 799).

This complicated system was only more or less effective. Continuing complaints

and repeated ordinances throughout the remainder of the 16th century speak to ongoing

disorder (e.g. LCL 14.I.1558, 31.I.1561, 28.V.1563, 24.XI.1570, 20.VII.1583,

10.II.1584). The Cabildo responded by naming a mill inspector- Alonso Davalos- who

was appointed in 1558, 1559, 1561, and 1563 (LCL 6.V.1558, 2.I.1559, 31.I.1561,

28.V.1563). Finally, in 1594, Viceroy Hurtado de Mendoza issued seventeen new

ordinances for millers and the weighing of flour, as part of his general ordinances for the

city. These mandated that there were to be two weigh stations in the city, each with an

honorable man trained in his job (rotated every four months), a book to record weights

and deliveries, and an official seal of the city to use on the grain sacks. (One of these was

located at the Alhóndiga; the other location is unknown.) Mills were not to accept

unweighed grain and no one was allowed to open unweighed sacks. Mills were also

required to have sets of the official city weights, and no unauthorized persons were to

96 enter mills. The fines for infractions were steep, and
r was to be subtracted from the maquila for the weight inspectors’ salaries and maintenance of the weigh stations (LCL-

Vol. 12 Appendix: 685-686). The Cabildo did not deal with the issue of weights again during the remainder of the 16th-17th centuries. While this may indicate that the problem was solved, it more likely suggests that the Cabildo just stopped regulating the weighing of grain in mills, at least in regular meetings.

Missing weight was not the only way measurement fraud could occur. Viceroy

Hurtado de Mendoza’s ordinances allude to some of the others: Grain was not to be milled wet and sacks were to be stored in dry places; millstones were to be well dressed so that high quality flour was milled; millers were not have any animals in the mill area that could contaminate or eat the grain, (e.g., pigs, chickens, etc.); and, under no circumstances was barley to be milled. A serious complaint against millers was the substitution of rotten or poor quality grain for the good quality grain that the clients had sent. For example, in 1670 a case was brought against mill owner Don Luis Ossorio de

Lodio (#39) by Pedro Millan, a baker. Millan stated he sent 1,220 fanegas of wheat to be milled, but that the miller had switched the grain he sent which was the “good and rich, of the best of the city and el Callao [the port] because it was sent from Magdalena,

Maranga and Carabailla, clean and selected” for damaged, rotten, and bad wheat that the miller had bought for this purpose. Witnesses and other clients testified that this was not the first time Ossorio de Lodio had committed such a crime. In his defense, the miller blamed the African slaves who worked in his mill.46

Considering all of the methods Lima millers apparently used to commit grain measurement fraud, it is little wonder that they were not well-respected members of

46 AAL- Causas Criminales- Legajo 26 - Expediente 17 - Years 1670-1671

97 society. Note the important distinction between mill owners (often the highest ranking

members of society) and millers/mill renters, who handled its actual operation. The

social historian James Lockhart goes as far as to say that millers, who he claims were

often sailors or foreigners, “were picked from the lowest ranks of the unemployed”

(Lockhart 1994, 123).47 And certainly in Europe they were often considered shady or downright evil characters, as described above.

“A Principal Part of the Sustenance the Republic”: Mill Governance in a Complex Colonial Society (Flows of People)

Based on the above it is fair to say that milling and millers occupied an ambiguous position in colonial Lima. On the one hand, mills were necessary for bread, and bread was necessary to maintain a Spanish way of life. On many occasions mills are referred to as “principal parts of” or “convenient to” the “republic” (meaning viceroyalty) (e.g., LCL 13.VII.1551).48 For much of the period under discussion, mills were owned by the most prominent families in Lima, the first mills having been installed by conquistadores and city founders and maintained in their families for generations. On the other hand, while mills were necessary, they were a necessary evil. The numerous

problems the Cabildo faced in regulating water and grain flows through mills makes this

clear. Milling, as a profession, experienced a series of attacks or crises during the 17th

century, which brought millers into conflict with bakers, the Cabildo, and the Church.

These problems, combined with mill closures and shifting ownership patterns, point to an

overall decline in milling by the end of the 17th century. In the remainder of this chapter,

47 Unfortunately it is difficult to trace Lockhart's references and determine how he arrived at this conclusion, because he does not provide specific citations for his statements. The LCL do not include information on the origins of the millers/mill renters. 48 See also: AAL- Capítulos Lima - Legajo 11- Expediente 3 - Year 1654 -f.14v

98 I analyze three of these attacks or crises: one petition by millers to raise the maquila

presented to the Cabildo and two court cases brought by the Church against millers who

broke the law by milling on Sundays. The common underlying theme from all three

examples is that mills were not profitable endeavors, which was due to the way they were

regulated. In all three cases, millers attempted to push back against those regulations to

try to make the situation more favorable to their business. In each case, I explore why

millers were “allowed” to suffer under restrictive regulations and I identify whose

interests were being protected over those of the millers.

Millers against Bakers, and the Role of the Cabildo

The joint miller petition and protest of 1672 is a good place to start to understand

the economic conflicts of milling and the state of crisis that millers claimed to experience

in the latter half of the 17th century. In this case, seven mill owners and mill renters

joined together to petition the Cabildo to raise the maquila from 1
r to 2
r, which was the maquila set by Viceroy Hurtado de Mendoza in 1594 (LCL 10.III.1672). This fee would include grain pick up and delivery. The millers argued that the maquila of 1
r

did not cover their costs, which were:

1.10-12 mules and hay/feed for the mules, which the millers claimed had doubled in price in recent years. 2. Black slaves, which the millers report had cost 300-400 pesos on credit before, but now were only available for 1000 pesos in cash. 3. Millstones, which had cost 200 pesos, but now were 500-600 pesos each. 4. Iron, which had cost 2-3 reales/libra, but now was 8 reales/libra. 5. Mill wheels, carpentry, building repairs and all other maintenance costs had also risen. 6. Day laborer fees had been raised to 8-10 reales/day.

Based on these expenses, the millers requested that the maquila be raised, claiming that

mills would be forced to close if it did not. As proof they referred to the recent closures

of the mills of Don Joseph de Mendoza y Costilla (#30), Don Juan de Aliaga Sotomayor

99 (#4), and the Jesuits (#14), which had been “...extinguished, being more convenient to

lose them [the mills] than to destroy themselves in them” (LCL 10.III.1672).49

The complaint in itself is not that significant, it certainly was not the first time

millers asked for the maquila to be raised. This case does shed light on the expenses of

mills and thus their daily operation, however the real point of interest is the response

made by the Cabildo and bakers, and the counter-response made by the millers. After

hearing the petition, the Cabildo sent copies of the complaint to the bakers and asked for

their prompt response. Four days later the bakers replied that the millers had stopped

serving them in an act of rebellion. The Cabildo declared this action against the public

good, and asked the bakers to identify the specific millers involved so that they could be

punished. The lower class millers named in the complaint, (those without the title

“Don/Doña”, who were probably actually renters and not owners), were fined 200 p each

and were warned that future offenses would result in imprisonment. The mill owners

with the title “Don/Doña” were given slight warnings only. The Cabildo determined that

the alcaldes and other Cabildo officials would visit all the mills to inspect the situation,

“looking for a convenient solution so that the mills go back to being molientes y

corrientes” (LCL 14.III.1672). However, by the next day, the millers had apparently all

gone into hiding (LCL 15.III.1672).50 Two weeks later, the bakers presented a counter petition, claiming that if the maquila was raised, the price of wheat and the price of bread, both determined by the Cabildo, must be adjusted in the baker’s favor (LCL 31.III.1672).

The Cabildo, faced with “such grave material” did what most governments do in similar

49 Note: these are the original mills highlighted above in Section “Mill Construction in Lima...," including the second mill built by Don Luis Mendoza de Ribera in 1609. 50 Looking to make the best of the situation, a baker named Juan de Yrsabal asked the Cabildo for permission to rent and operate a mill, which was granted (LCL 15.III.1672)

100 situations: it determined that more study was needed and asked for additional verification

of the costs of milling before any decision could be made (LCL 31.III.1672). While the

Cabildo did not continue to discuss this issue in its meetings, three months later it quietly

raised the maquila by
r (LCL 28.VI.1672).

This case highlights the competing interests of the millers and the bakers, as well

as the Cabildo’s role in mediating between the two groups in order to limit conflict and

ensure a steady supply of bread at a reasonable price. This conflict may have been

influenced by personal problems; two of the loudest voices were Pedro Millan, the baker

who accused miller Don Luis Ossorio de Lodio of substituting rotten wheat in his orders

(See above section “Interactions and Conflicts in Flows of Grain...”). It is fairly clear

that the bakers came out on top in this competition; they had much more success in

influencing the Cabildo (see Chapter 4). In fact, the close relationship between milling

and the Cabildo had nearly vanished by 1672. Since 1643, there was only one mill

owned by a Regidor (city councilman) or an Alcalde (mayor). This was Don Juan de la

Celda Verdugo, who was Regidor from 1660-1687, and served as mayor twice, in 1665

and 1684 (Lohmann Villena 1983). Don Juan did not sign in the miller complaint of

1672, although his renter may have, and he was present at the Cabildo meeting when the

complaint was submitted.51 Finally, there is a drastic and significant difference between

the millers’ punishments based on social class. Those of lower classes received harsh

punishment and heavy fines, while those of higher classes received only slight warnings.

This shows divisions among millers, and the concentration of milling in the hands of

lower class Lima residents by the end of the 17th century.

51Celda Verdugo was present in Cabildo meetings on 10.III.1672 and 31.III.1672, and was absent on 14.III.1672 and 15.III.1672.

101 While in this case the Cabildo managed to forestall chaos and failure in the

grain/bread supply, its actions by no means solved the problem for all time. It seems that

milling continued to be a less and less lucrative business, and over one hundred years

later the city’s millers presented a very similar complaint to the Cabildo. In 1797, a

detailed report was submitted to the Cabildo that listed the mills in operation in the city,

the amount of grain milled per day, and the profits and expenses of each mill generally

and specifically.52 Overall, the report estimated that the seventeen mills in operation lost

25,514 p, 1 r per year. In this period, the millers had been receiving 2 r for the maquila, which they were hoping to raise to 2
r (again, according to the 1594 ordinance).

Barring that, they requested that the owners of the wheat pay for the transport of the grain and flour to and from the mill. The principal costs of milling were:

1. Majordomo/Steward- 1p, 2r per day 2. Miller - 1p per day 3. Majordomo/Steward of the pack animals/mules – 1p per day 4. 3 laborers - 2p, 2r per day (total) 5. Hay/feed for the mules - 1p, 4r per day 6. Candles -  r per day

Annually this amounted to 2,587 p,  r. Apart from these daily costs there were 30p/year

to the blacksmith; 60 p/year for canal cleaning; and 160 p/year for maintenance of the

millwheel, sluice gates, inclined chutes (“chiflones”; see Appendix B), and other mill

components, as well as equipment for the mules. Finally, the millers spent 150 p/year on

extra wheat to make up missing weight. Overall the calculation of the annual costs of

running a normal mill (normal considered to be a mill with three sets of millstones,

located on the Huatica canal) was about 3039 p/year.53 With income of about 3201p/year

from the maquila and rent of about 1200 p/year, this works out to over 1000 p (and often

52AGN- Pl24 53 Adjustments were made for mills with fewer than three stones, and for mills not located on the Huatica canal, which consequently had different costs of canal cleaning.

102 more) lost per mill per year. The modest raise in the maquila requested by the millers

would not make up this difference. The report questions how millers could stay in

business, referring to the “sacrifice and personal sweat” of the millers, and that while

bakers “maintain luxury...the poor millers pass their days full of misery.”

While it is certain that this report was put together in such a way as to favor the

millers’ case, overall it is fair to say that milling was not a profitable activity and that

millers did not hold powerful sway with the Cabildo. Distinction should continue to be

made between mill owners and millers (renters). Presumably, as long as miller owners

received rent, they had little interest in the success of the milling business (See above,

discussion of contracts, section: “Corriente y Moliente...”). However, as we have seen, over time mill owners were decreasingly members of the city council or prominent Lima families, and thus millers in general would have had lessening influence over Cabildo decisions. Given the low fees and high costs, it is not surprising that millers sought to cut corners in the ways described above, as well as others. One of these methods --breaking the Sabbath day to mill on Sundays –– brought the millers in direct conflict with yet another powerful interest in Lima: the Church.

Millers against the Church

The point of conflict was the prohibition of milling on Sundays and other Catholic

Holy Days. The Archbishopric Court enforced this ecclesiastical law, with punishments scaling from warnings, to fines, and finally to excommunication depending on the severity of the offense. In the AAL records, there are five cases when millers are accused

103 of breaking this law, dating to 1634, 1635, 1641-1644, 1659, and 1697-1699.54 They all followed the same general pattern: witnesses reported seeing millers running their mills on Sundays or Holy Days, which signified that the millers were working their African slaves or day laborers, who in consequence were not able to attend mass. Millers protested that bakers, butchers, and spice shop owners were allowed to work on these days of rest, because their work was necessary to the supply the residents of the city.

Millers argued that they fell into the same category. While the millers always lost the cases, the arguments used on both sides reveal much about the situation of mills in the broader flows of water, grain and people through Lima. In particular, two extended cases, those from 1641-1644 and 1697-1699 warrant closer examination.

The first case, which was a long extended conflict ranging from 1641-1644 that eventually involved six millers, began on 13 January 1641 with an accusation against

Pedro de Espinossa, the miller renting the Aliaga mill (#4).55 Pedro de Espinossa was officially charged by the Ecclesiastical court with going against the orders of the Church by milling and making his African slaves work on a Sunday. The witness against him was the slave Anton Bañu, who belonged to another woman (Maria de Fuentes) and was being rented to Espinossa. Bañu testified that he worked the mill on the Sunday in question as on a normal day, and in consequence Espinossa was jailed. Over a year later, again at the Aliaga mill, Espinossa was charged with the same offense.56 This time the slave was named Gaspar Angola, and rather than accept punishment, Espinossa launched into an extended defense of his actions, attacking the prohibition of milling on Sundays

54 AAL-Causas Criminales - Legajo 9 -Expediente 26, Legajo 9-Expediente 32, Legajo 20-Expediente 22, Legajo 34-Expediente 29; AAL- Capitulos Lima-Legajo 11-Expediente 3. 55 AAL- Capitulos Lima-Legajo 11-Expediente 3- f.7r 56 ibid, f.12v, date: 6 August 1642

104 and Holy Days. He presented two primary reasons, which addressed the prohibition in theory, and seven secondary ones, which address specific business-based reasons why milling should be allowed. First, he claimed that mills were “a principal part of the sustenance of the republic” and that without them there can be no bread. Since bread was consumed every day, milling should be allowed every day. Bakeries, pastry shops, butcheries, and spice shops had license to work on Sundays, and Espinossa argued that mills belonged in this same category. Secondly, he claimed that this prohibition went against the general tradition and custom in Spain, as well as historical practices in Lima.

The specific reasons Espinossa gave are even more illuminating, and deserve to be paraphrased nearly verbatim. Basically, he claimed that millers’ businesses suffered greatly by this law, for the following reasons:

1. There are many Holy Days in the Lima calendar, which amount to nearly half the year. Since there are only nine mills in the city, without milling on Sundays/Holy Days it is nearly impossible to supply the city, and worse, these mills also supply the port El Callao, and the population living up to five leagues (approx. 24 km), surrounding the city. 2.“Country people” and farmers can only come to the city on Sundays and Holy Days, and they bring their wheat and maize to the city to be milled on those days. 3. By city ordinance, for two months of the year no milling can occur while canals are being cleaned. The rest of the year there are many days when the water level is too low to mill, mainly in the planting season, when farmers use much irrigation water on weekdays. Since they do not irrigate on Sundays/Holy Days only on these days is there enough water to mill. Also, in the “avenida” season, it is common for mill canal intakes to be washed out, and so there are still more days when there is not enough water for mills. 4. Bakers work every day and they would run out of wheat if millers cannot work Sundays/Holy Days. 5. The labor required to mill is really quite easy, because the water does the work. Therefore the black slave just has to watch the mill, and in general milling does not impede either clients or workers from attending mass. 6. The mills are rented, and if millers cannot work Sundays they will not make enough money to stay open, and the city will be left without sustenance. 7. The Viceroy Conde de Chinchon, had decreed that millers can work Sundays.

Given the discussions in previous sections, these arguments should make sense.

Moreover, they demonstrate quite clearly how the specific mill technology, the way it was used, and its relationship to broader flows of water, grain, and people directly influenced millers’ business.

105 Several months later, in response to Espinossa’s extended counter argument, the

Church broadened the case. On 2 September 1643, five additional millers were accused of the same offense: these millers were Juan Garcia de Otalora (Owner of a mill in San

Lázaro, #37, for an offense on 28 July 1641), Dionicio Ramirez (renter of Merced mill,

#8, for offenses on 10 August 1642 and 18 October 1634), Nicolas Bautista (renter of

Santa Clara mill, #36, for offenses on 25 September 1643 and 14 January 1635),

Bartolome Millan de Porras (no details), and Juan Alvares (no details). The church declared that “this is not a new prohibition, it has always been in place, here and in

Spain” and that there are thirteen mills in the city, and more in El Callao, which is more than enough to supply the city.57 It brought ten witnesses to testify in the case. Two witnesses were officials in the Ecclesiastical court, both of whom declared that there were nine mills in the city and more in El Callao, sufficient to supply the city without working on Sundays. The other witnesses testified in defense of the millers. These men were of the lower classes of the city, they were residents of various neighborhoods, and their professions included carpenter and manager of a lime kiln. Their rationales echoed

Espinossa’s defense, especially in reference to the importance of the mills for the sustenance of the city and the annual and seasonal lack of water. The court ruled against the millers, upholding its prohibition. Moreover, it discounted the evidence of the pro- miller witnesses (the majority), saying they were “interested parties” who spoke to placate the millers. Nearly a year later, on 30 September 1644 the millers were lightly fined: 6 p, 1 r was to be prorated between the six guilty millers (compare to the 200 p/miller fine handed down by the Cabildo in 1672).

57 ibid f.20v

106 The second case worthy of a closer look contains some of the same elements. In

1697, Juan Bravo, owner of the San Pedro Nolasco mill (#46), was accused of milling on

Sundays.58 In his defense he stated that while he was in general agreement with the

prohibition of milling on Sundays and Holy Days, as these should be rest days for all, he

thought that the regulation should include some flexibility for special extenuating

circumstances and accidents. Namely, he argued that due to the general scarcity of wheat

being experienced throughout Lima and its surroundings at the time of his case (1690s),

bakers were not able to store flour as they did in times of abundance: “At present,

whoever has one or two fanegas [of wheat] brings it to the mill when they get it, and even

more so the farmers, who work so continuously through the week...can only come on

Sundays/Holidays [to the city mills].”59 Finally, he maintained that the work of the

African laborers was minimal: “...they just put the wheat in the hoppers and let it go for three or more hours, in which time the black occupies himself in lying down to sleep and rest without work, because the water and stones do all the labor...”.60 In conclusion, he requested that the prohibition be withdrawn during the time of sterility and scarcity.

Here, Bravo made reference to the famous plague on the Lima wheat crop that occurred in the several years after 1692 (Flores Galindo 1984; Pérez-Maillaína 2000, see also

Chapter 4).

The Church strongly refuted all of Bravo’s arguments declaring that Sundays were days of worship not days of rest, and that only God could change the prohibition of work on these days. Moreover, it argued that it was the breaking of the Sabbath that caused the wheat scarcity in the first place: since most landowners and farmers worked

58 AAL-Causas Criminales - Legajo 34-Expediente 29-Year 1697- f.1r 59 ibid, f.2r 60 ibid f.3v-4r

107 their slaves and day laborers on Sundays God punished them with bad harvests. In

addition, the Church maintained that in reality the scarcity was not so bad, because while

local wheat harvests had failed, sufficient wheat was brought into the city by ships and

overland. As if these reasons were not enough, the court stated that Bravo’s claim as to

the easy labor required for milling was ridiculous, because mills worked day and night,

on workdays or holidays, and while mills were operating the hoppers required constant

attention, and the workers had to continuously collect flour.61 The court issued a warning to Bravo, and a reminder to all, that milling was still prohibited on Sundays and Holy

Days. Bravo was caught committing the same offense on 2 February 1698 and again on

18 May 1699. For the 1698 offense he was issued another warning, but in 1699 he was fined 50 p. While the Church threatened excommunication for further offenses, it seems not to have followed through on that severe punishment.

In general the cases of the Church v. Millers highlight the weak position of the millers. By going against the Sunday prohibition millers may have been able to prevent the failure of their businesses, but in doing so they risked antagonizing the Church.

While the millers often presented rational arguments in their own defense, the Church’s strong authority negated all of their claims. Finally, these cases clearly place mills within broader scale flows of water, grain, and people. For water, we see the impacts of the annual cycle of avenidas, irrigation, and the dry season upon milling (more detail in

Chapter 3). For grain, we see mills in the context of grain provision of Lima and its surroundings, with wheat being supplied from local and distant sources (more detail in

Chapter 4). Finally, for flows of people, we see the actual daily circulation of people through the city: walking to Church, slaves leaving mills briefly to attend mass, farmers

61 ibid f.4

108 and rural people visiting the city on Sundays. We also see more general relations between Church officials, (lowly) millers, and African slaves (who were somewhat protected by the Church: their testimonies were sought and respected, their need to go to mass was also respected). As a concluding note, it is significant that nowhere, in any of these cases (Church or Cabildo) were Indian populations mentioned as mill owners, clients, workers, or otherwise.

Discussion and Conclusions

I use this section to highlight how many of the insights described in the previous sections about the flows of water and grain through Lima mills, including spatial and social interactions and conflicts, can be brought together and used to design a research approach for mill studies more generally. With respect to water use, it is of foundational importance to consider how seasonal water fluctuations and other water users affect milling, where mills fall in the hierarchy of water users (see also Glick and Kirchner

2000), and how mills are simultaneously situated within water flows at multiple spatial scales. With respect to how grain influences milling, important questions include where grain comes from, how steady is its supply, how transportation and storage are handled, and who are grain producers, traders, and consumers.

This predominantly material perspective on mills and flows should be complemented with more conceptual analysis of the governance of milling. This means asking what branches of governance or institutions controlled milling and how they did so. More specifically, it means asking what were milling regulations and how were they enforced, what fees/tolls were implemented and how they were contested, and, how

109 rights to water were allocated and how water conflicts were resolved. I have conceived of and diagramed these milling regulations as moments of governance, or points at which the Cabildo actively intervened in order to help flows move smoothly (from the Cabildo’s perspective anyway) (Figures 2.16 and 2.18). Oftentimes, a technology, or physical structure (e.g., canal intake, mill, weigh station) provides the focus for a moment of governance (although not always).

Finally, my results show that mills must also be located within the broader social landscape. Given regulations, enforcement practices, and methods of conflict resolution, how may the place of milling/millers in society be interpreted? What distinctions should be made between different types of individuals involved in mills (e.g., owners, renters, workers, slaves)? And, what were the relationships between millers, bakers, merchants, the government, and the Church? This mill studies research approach is not only applicable to Lima, or to cases of Spanish colonialism, but rather can be applied and adapted to studies of mill construction and use in diverse historical and geographical contexts.

I draw several significant conclusions from the application of this research approach to the specific historical-geographical context of Columbian Exchange period

Peru. First, this study of gristmill technology in 16th-17th century Lima demonstrates the importance of taking a comprehensive perspective, analyzing the introduction of a production system as a whole, instead of individual components on their own. This includes complementing the study of biological aspects of the Columbian Exchange with consideration for tools and technologies. It also includes concern for aspects of cultural- technical knowledge as well as governance practices and institutions. Second, situating a

110 technology within its wider landscape is crucial for understanding how the introduction

of that technology influenced social-environmental transformations. This involves

studying how a technology fit into the physical or material landscape, as well as how it

influenced changes in the ways that landscape was categorized, or the concepts through

which it was understood. Finally, it is necessary to take into account the issue of change

over time. Nearly everything introduced from Spain/Europe to the New World was

adapted and modified over time; it is precisely in understanding what changes occurred

and why they transpired that the major impacts of these introductions can be recognized

and appreciated.62

With the above discussion of the role of technology-based analysis in Columbian

Exchange studies, it is also apparent that technology can provide insights into nature-

society relations more generally. Above, and in Chapter 1, I outlined a multi-component

definition of technology with respect to human use of the environment. Based on the

case study of Lima gristmills we can see that technology certainly serves as mediator

between humans and the environment, especially in terms of resource use. The activities

involved in this mediation (construction, use, management, and governance of the

technology) all require systems of technical knowledge, which has significant cultural

and political components. Likewise, these activities, and consequently the technologies

they include, are entirely embedded in socioeconomic systems and social relations of

production. Yet the local physical reality –– the landscape including its diverse flows ––

also influences how the technology may work. This is especially true with respect to

62 The Spanish in Lima never transitioned from the horizontal water-wheel mill to the arguably more powerful vertical water-wheel mill. While several reasons may be proposed--horizontal mills were cheaper and easier to construct, and they required less metal and less water to run-- the actual explanation for this technological continuity (or stagnation) is unclear.

111 water flow; the physical requirements of waterpower are controlled simultaneously though natural availability (and variability) and socio-political distribution of rights. To make sense of these diverse interacting features and processes –– including the groups, individuals, and elements of the natural world –– the network or assemblage approach has proven helpful and productive.

Overall, I have focused on Spanish cities, Spanish society, and Spanish cultural traditions (including legal, institutional, technical, agricultural, and culinary traditions).

However, Indians also owned gristmills in Peru during the colonial period. These mills were located in the sierra (outside of Lima), and exist in documents from the late-18th century onwards. Three examples may be briefly mentioned. The first is a simple petition by the Indians of the town of San Pedro de Navan (Cajatambo Province) to build a mill (1795). It was made by the attorney for Indians at the Royal Court (Fiscal

Protector), and was approved by that institution of Spanish colonial government.63 The second is a slightly more complicated petition by the Indians of the town of Chongos

(Jauja Province) to build new mill (1797). This petition specified that the community’s old mill was no longer functioning because the lake that supplied its water had dried up.

The community proposed moving the mill to a nearby spring from which flows “a small quantity of water.” Of further interest, was that this mill (i.e. its proceeds) was devoted to the worship of Our Lady of the Rosary (culto de la Señora del Rosario).64

Finally, there is a petition from Tupac Amaru--the famous indigenous leader of the anti-colonial rebellion of 1780 –– for “two more heridos” in addition to his existing

63 AGN-GO-3I-Leg60-Cua1539-Year 1795 64 AGN-GO-BI-Leg60-Cua1573-Year 1797-f.1r

112 herido, in the village of Tungasuca (Cuzco Province) (1779).65 Along with analysis of

the research questions outlined above, the cultural syncretisms represented by these

Indian-owned mills –– including aspects of environmental change, Spanish government,

Catholic religion and indigenous rebellion –– suggest paths for further exploration into

the role of technology in the social and environmental transformations of the Columbian

Exchange.

65 Archive of the Riva-Agüero Institute-FDL-0666. Transcription of document provided by Ada Arrieta, director of the Archivo IRA.

113

Figure 2.1. Top: Basic horizontal water-wheel gristmill (Source: Barceló 2004). Bottom: Detail on functioning of wheel and stones (Source: Vera Nicolás, n.d., Diagram #6)

114

Figure 2.2. Water flow into and out of a horizontal water-wheel gristmill (Source: Vera Nicolás, n.d., Diagram #25)

115 Figure 2.3. Rows of horizontal water-wheel mills (Source: Barceló 2004).

116

Figure 2.4. Horizontal water-wheel mills with multiple sets of stones (Source: Turriano 1996[1576]).

117 Figure 2.5 (a-c). Interactions or conflicts related to water use

a. Mill construction and use alters natural stream flow. This often leads to erosion and scouring below the dam, and increased sedimentation above the dam (Squatriti 1998:131, Cronon 1983:149). This is a possible, although uncommon, structure used for horizontal water-wheel mills.

b. Mills upstream and downstream from one another can manipulate water flow to interfere with each other’s functioning. Because of this. laws were created to regulate water flow (Spanish examples from 13th Century Valencia in Glick and Martinez 2006).

118 c (part 1). Mills were often situated in relation to irrigated areas. Mills placed above irrigated areas released water into irrigation canals. (Information and image adapted from Glick and Kirchner 2000).

c (part 2). Mills can also be placed below irrigated fields, and receive water after it passes through the fields. Mill placement above or below irrigation reflected the relative importance of each water use, among other things. (Information and image adapted from Glick and Kirchner 2000).

119 
Phase 3 


Phase 2 
Phase 1








































                                   

 

 


 

Figure 2.6. Bar graph of new mill construction showing three phases of mill construction. Note: "New* mill" actually refers to the first date of mention of a mill. Sometimes this is the successful petition to build a mill; sometimes it is a reference to an already constructed mill. It does not include the first mention of a previously existing mill under new ownership. For most mills it is also impossible to determine for how long it was in operation. See Table 2.1 for exact references for each mill.

120 MILLS 1. Ampuero (1540) (probably never built) Gristmills in 2. Palomino (1544) (probable location) Cerro San Cristóbal 3. Avendaño (1544) (probable location) Lima, 1540-1561 4. Aliaga (1548), G. Aliaga de los Rios (1606), V. de Aliaga (1641), J. de Aliaga Santiago Sotomayor (1672), mill closed by 1672 del Cercado 5. Agüero (1550) (Indian Settlement) 6. Gonzáles (1551) 7. Burgos (1551) 8. la Merced (1551), Avila Alaraz (1607) 9. el Marques (1552) 10. Barrios (1554) (never built) Plaza del 11. La Dehesa (1558) (not located) Cercado 12. Merlo (1559) 13. Alhóndiga (1559) (not completed) San Lazaro 14. Silva (1561), de Ribera (1602), San Lazaro † Mendoza de Ribera (1606), Jesuitas (1608) Parrish 9

Stone Bridge †Santa Clara Caja de Agua de la Caridad al 2 an 6 † a C 3 San Francisco tic Alhóndiga ua 4 H

al 7 Universidad an a C gu Santo e † Descalzas a/L ang Domingo Viceroy 12 † ar Inquisition a/M Santa Ana en Cabildo Plaza Plaza † al d Mayor † 5 Santa Ana Parrish g 14 a Cathedral M † Monserrate La Concepcion San Cathedral Parrish † † Sebastian San † †Jesuit Agustin 8 † San Martin† Agustinian Field Road College (Jesuit) (from El Callao) La Merced

San† † Marcelo

†Huerfanos † Encarnacion

Camino Real (from El Callao) † Noviciado (Jesuit)

Mills-Phase 1:1540 -1561 Guadalupe Cathedral Parrish N Santa Ana Parrish Scale 1:5000 San Lazaro Parrish 100 300 500m Rural Zone Basemap: Lima in 1613 by Road from Surco ( elds surrounding Lima) Bromley (1943)

121 Figure 2.7. Map: Mill construction Phase 1 (1540-1561). New mills are clustered along the riverbank. MILLS 1. Ampuero (1540) (probably never built) Gristmills in 2. Palomino (1544) (probable location) Cerro San Cristóbal 3. Avendaño (1544) (probable location) Lima, 1540-1643 4. Aliaga (1548), G. Aliaga de los Rios (1606), V. de Aliaga (1641), J. de Aliaga Santiago Sotomayor (1672), mill closed by 1672 del Cercado 5. Agüero (1550) (Indian Settlement) 6. Gonzáles (1551) 7. Burgos (1551) 8. la Merced (1551), Avila Alaraz (1607) 9. el Marques (1552) 10. Barrios (1554) (never built) Plaza del 11. La Dehesa (1558) (not located) Cercado 12. Merlo (1559) 33 13. Alhóndiga (1559) (not completed) San Lazaro 29 14. Silva (1561), de Ribera (1602), San Lazaro † 37 Mendoza de Ribera (1606), Jesuitas (1608) Parrish 9 15. Xuara (1574) (probable location) 16. Carbajal (1576) Stone 17. Zelis (1576) (probably not built) Bridge †Santa Clara Caja de Agua 18. Santa Ana (1576) de la Caridad al 19. Garçon (1576) 16 2 an 6 † a C 20. Docte (1578) 3 San Francisco tic 36 Alhóndiga ua 4 H 21. Martínez (1578) (not located)

al 7 Universidad 31 22. F. Aliaga de los Rios (1582) (not located) an a C gu Santo e † Descalzas a/L 27 23. J. Aliaga de los Rios (1585) (not located) ang Domingo Viceroy 12 † ar Inquisition a/M 20 Santa Ana 24. anonymous (1593) (not on map) en 32 Cabildo Plaza 30 28 Plaza † al 25. Abendaño (1596) (not located) d Mayor † 14 19 5 18 Santa Ana Parrish g Cathedral a 26 26. Teatinos (1600) M † 27. Mendoça (1600) Monserrate La Concepcion 35 San Cathedral Parrish 28. Hernandez (1604) † † Sebastian 29. San Pedro (1604) San † †Jesuit Agustin 8 30. Mendoza de Ribera (1609), Mendoza y Costilla (1644), † San Martin† 15 Agustinian Field Road College (Jesuit) Closed by 1672 (from El Callao) La Merced 31. Muñoz Ternero (1613) (out of service) San† † 32. Martínez de Pastraña (1613), Marcelo de Pastraña y Rivera (1650), Espinossa y Rivera (1672), Espinossa y Pastraña (1693) †Huerfanos 33. Saz (1617) † 34. de Billalobos (1626) (not located) Encarnacion 35. de Vera (Monserrate) (1634) Camino Real 36. Santa Clara (1635) (from El Callao) † 37. Garcia de Otalora (1643), Noviciado F. Bravo de Lagunas (1663), (Jesuit) de la Celda Verdugo (1663) Mills-Phase 1:1540 -1561 38. de las Infantas (1643) (not located) Mills-Phase 2:1574 -1643 39. Luis Osorio de Lodio (1670) 40. del Castillo (1672) (not located) 41. Coello (1672) (possible renter, not located) Guadalupe 42. Pardo (1672) (possible renter, not located) Cathedral Parrish 43. del Rio Aguero (1672) (poss. renter, not located) Scale 1:5000 N 44. Bracamonte (1672) (poss. renter, not located) Santa Ana Parrish 45. La Pampa (1672) (not located) San Lazaro Parrish 100 300 500m 46. Bravo de Laguna (San Pedro Nolasco) (1696) Rural Zone Basemap: Lima in 1613 by Road from Surco ( elds surrounding Lima) Bromley (1943)

122 Figure 2.8. Map: Mill construction Phase 2 (1574-1643). New mills are mainly located along the Huatica Canal. MILLS 1. Ampuero (1540) (probably never built) Gristmills in 2. Palomino (1544) (probable location) Cerro San Cristóbal 3. Avendaño (1544) (probable location) Lima, 1540-1700 4. Aliaga (1548), G. Aliaga de los Rios (1606), V. de Aliaga (1641), J. de Aliaga Santiago Sotomayor (1672), mill closed by 1672 del Cercado 5. Agüero (1550) (Indian Settlement) 6. Gonzáles (1551) 7. Burgos (1551) 8. la Merced (1551), Avila Alaraz (1607) 9. el Marques (1552) 10. Barrios (1554) (never built) Plaza del 11. La Dehesa (1558) (not located) Cercado 12. Merlo (1559) 33 13. Alhóndiga (1559) (not completed) San Lazaro 29 14. Silva (1561), de Ribera (1602), San Lazaro † 37 Mendoza de Ribera (1606), Jesuitas (1608) Parrish 9 15. Xuara (1574) (probable location) 16. Carbajal (1576) Stone 17. Zelis (1576) (probably not built) Bridge †Santa Clara Caja de Agua 18. Santa Ana (1576) de la Caridad al 19. Garçon (1576) 16 2 an 6 † a C 20. Docte (1578) 3 San Francisco tic 36 Alhóndiga ua 4 H 21. Martínez (1578) (not located)

al 7 Universidad 31 22. F. Aliaga de los Rios (1582) (not located) an a C gu Santo e † Descalzas a/L 27 23. J. Aliaga de los Rios (1585) (not located) ang Domingo Viceroy 12 † ar Inquisition a/M 20 Santa Ana 24. anonymous (1593) (not on map) en 32 Cabildo Plaza 30 28 Plaza † al 25. Abendaño (1596) (not located) d Mayor † 14 19 5 18 Santa Ana Parrish g Cathedral a 26 26. Teatinos (1600) M † 27. Mendoça (1600) Monserrate La Concepcion 35 San Cathedral Parrish 28. Hernandez (1604) † † Sebastian 29. San Pedro (1604) San † †Jesuit Agustin 8 30. Mendoza de Ribera (1609), Mendoza y Costilla (1644), † San Martin† 15 Agustinian Field Road College (Jesuit) 39 Closed by 1672 (from El Callao) La Merced 31. Muñoz Ternero (1613) (out of service) San† † 32. Martínez de Pastraña (1613), Marcelo de Pastraña y Rivera (1650), Espinossa y 39 Rivera (1672), Espinossa y Pastraña (1693) †Huerfanos 33. Saz (1617) † 34. de Billalobos (1626) (not located) Encarnacion 35. de Vera (Monserrate) (1634) Camino Real 36. Santa Clara (1635) (from El Callao) † 37. Garcia de Otalora (1643), Noviciado F. Bravo de Lagunas (1663), (Jesuit) de la Celda Verdugo (1663) Mills-Phase 1:1540 -1561 38. de las Infantas (1643) (not located) Mills-Phase 2:1574 -1643 39. Luis Osorio de Lodio (1670) 40. del Castillo (1672) (not located) Mills-Phase 3:1670 -1700 41. Coello (1672) (possible renter, not located) Guadalupe 42. Pardo (1672) (possible renter, not located) Cathedral Parrish 43. del Rio Aguero (1672) (poss. renter, not located) Scale 1:5000 N 44. Bracamonte (1672) (poss. renter, not located) Santa Ana Parrish 45. La Pampa (1672) (not located) San Lazaro Parrish 100 300 500m 46. Bravo de Laguna (San Pedro Nolasco) (1696) Rural Zone Basemap: Lima in 1613 by Road from Surco ( elds surrounding Lima) Bromley (1943)

123 Figure 2.9. Map: Mill construction Phase 3 (1670-1700). New mills are located towards the outskirts of the city center.

Figure 2.10. Peruvian Gristmill (Source: Martinez de Compañón 1782-1789).

124

Figure 2.11. Peruvian Ore-crushing mill (Source: Martinez de Compañón 1782-1789).

125

Figure 2.12. Peruvian Ore-crushing mill in landscape perspective. A gristmill would look the same in landscape perspective. (Source: Martinez de Compañón 1782-1789).

126

Figure 2.13. Multiple Peruvian ore-crushing mills along the same canal. (Source: Martinez de Compañón 1782-1789).

127

Figure 2.14. The Santa Clara mill, an ornate early 20th century millhouse (this was also the site of an earlier colonial mill). Top: front view of mill. Bottom: Huatica Canal, with Santa Clara mill in background. No date on either photo. (Source: http://limalaunica.blogspot.com/)

128

Figure 2.15. Undated horizontal water-wheel gristmill remains located on the Rímac riverbank near the Plaza Mayor and the Palacio de Gobierno, in what is now the City Wall Park (Parque de la Muralla). This mill structure contains two wheelhouses, and would have powered multiple sets of stones. (Photo credit: Gabriel Ramón and Karl Zimmerer)

129 4

al 2 an a C 3 tic Alhóndiga ua H Aliaga Mill (#4) 6

Cabildo Plaza Silva Mill (#14) 1 Mayor

7

Merced Mill (#8) 8

5

Gristmill Key Direction of Scale 1:5000 N water flow 1. Petition (and construction) 5. Irrigators (Downstream) Moment of Governance 2. Intake canals (washed away) 6. Canal cleaning/maintenance 100 300 500m Urban Zone 3. Drainage canals (erode riverbank) 7. Neighbors’ water use Basemap: Lima in 1613 by Bromley (1945) Rural Zone 4. Irrigators (Upstream) 8. Bridge maintenance

Figure 2.16. Diagram of mill interactions and conflicts related to water flows that required Cabildo intervention ("moments of governance"). These include petitions for rights to water for milling, protection of the riverbank and canal intakes, interactions with upstream and downstream irrigators, canal cleaning and maintenance, neighborhood-scale disputes over water use, and bridge construction and maintenance. The seal of the city of Lima is used to indicate these moments of governance; they are listed in the key (referenced by number on the diagram) and are described fully in the main text. Three "typical" mills (Aliaga, #4; Silva #l4, Merced, #8) are diagramed to represent the range of interactions that occurred. (Note: this is meant to be a diagram not a reference map, and so only selected elements are represented; see Figures 2.7-2.9 for full representation of Lima mills).

130 Cerro San Cristóbal

Santiago del Cercado (Indian Settlement)

Plaza del Cercado 33 San Lazaro 29 San Lazaro † 37 Santa Ana Parrish 9 Parrish

Stone Bridge †Santa Clara Caja de Agua de la Caridad al 16 2 † an 6 a C 3 San Francisco tic 36 Alhóndiga ua 4 H

al 7 Universidad 31 an a C gu Santo e † Descalzas a/L 27 † ang Domingo Viceroy 12 Scale 1:5000 ar Inquisition a/M 20 N en 32 Cabildo Plaza 30 28 Plaza † 100 300 500m al d Mayor † 14 19 5 18 Santa Ana g Cathedral a 26 Basemap: Lima in 1613 by M † Monserrate La Concepcion Bromley (1945) 35 † San Cathedral Parrish † Sebastian Traffic (grain and other carts) San † †Jesuit Agustin 8 from 1596 † San Martin† 15 Agustinian Field Road College (Jesuit) 39 (from El Callao) La Merced · Traffic was either pedestrian or mule- drawn cart (led by African slave, San† † Marcelo Indian or other cartman) 39 †Huerfanos · Two roads entered the city, one from † Encarnacion the port of Callao (which divided

Camino Real (Road from Port) into two before entering the urban (from El Callao) † zone) and one from the fields Noviciado (Jesuit) around the city (especially Surco)

· Required for carts to follow the major street (Calle Derecha) that Surco road (from fields) streets would lead them closest to their Agustinian field road (from port) streets Guadalupe destination, and return by the same Callao road/Camino Real (from port) streets route. Turning corners was Cathedral Parrish prohibited, this helped to prevent Mills-Phase 1:1540 -1561 Santa Ana Parrish carts from crossing the small city San Lazaro Parrish Mills-Phase 2:1574 -1643 canals that flowed along many blocks. Rural Zone Mills-Phase 3:1670 -1700 Road from Surco (fields surrounding Lima)

Figure 2.17. Mandated traffic patterns (by viceregal ordinance, 1596) for carts carrying grain and other goods into and through Lima. This traffic pattern was enacted to try to prevent damage to the smaller-scale canals that flowed through most of the North-South running streets that were used for garden irrigation and sanitation/sewage (not drawn here because their exact locations are unknown). For key to mill ID#s see Figures 2.7-2.9.

131 al an a C Alhóndiga (Granary and tic ua Weigh Station) H Aliaga Mill al 3 an a C gu e /L nga Viceroy ara a/M en Plaza Silva Mill al Cabildo Mayor † d g a 1 M

Agustinian Field Road (from El Callao) 2 Key 1. Set miller fee and official price of wheat and bread 2. Supervise distribution/transport of wheat from ships in port and from fields around city Camino Real (from El Callao) 3. Supervise weighing/measuring of wheat and flour and quality control

Moment of Governance

Mill Grain into city (Alhóndiga) Grain to mill Flour to Alhóndiga Scale 1:5000 Flour to bakers 100 300 500m Urban Zone Basemap: Lima in 1613 by N Road from Surco 2 Bromley (1945) (fields surrounding Lima) Rural Zone

Figure 2.18. Diagram of grain and flour flows through Lima and points at which the Cabildo intervened in this flow ("moments of governance"). This diagram represents wheat flows into the city to the Alhóndiga and then to mills, and the resulting flows of flour from mills to the Alhóndiga and then to bakers during the period when the Alhóndiga (municipal granary) was functioning (1558-1622). Before and after this period, grain would have gone directly from suppliers to bakers without passing through the municipal storehouse (for more information on these changing supply practices see Chapter 4). The traffic patterns represented in Figure 2.17 are used here. Grain/flour was transported in carts pulled by mules and driven by African slaves, Indians or other contracted cartmen. The seal of the city of Lima is used to indicate moments of governance; these are listed in the key (referenced by number on the diagram) and are described fully in the main text. Two "typical" mills (Aliaga, #4; Silva, #l4) are diagramed to represent the location of mills within grain flows. (Note: this is meant to be a diagram not a reference map, and so only selected elements are represented; see Figures 2.7-2.9 for full representation of Lima mills).

132 Table 2.1. All mills in urban Lima referenced in the Libros de Cabildos de Lima (LCL), between 1540-1700. Additional mill references are included from the following sources, and are labeled when appropriate: Archive of the Archbishopric of Lima (AAL), National Archive of Peru (AGN), Bromley and Barbagelata (1945), Bromley (2005), Canseco 1988[1617]. Unless otherwise noted, all references are from LCL, and all references are in the format yyyy-mm-dd. For each mill the following information is included (as available): mill ID#, the date of first reference, dates of additional references, status (e.g., petition only, constructed, sale, inheritance, etc.), owner, owner's titles/positions, location. Table shading indicates mill phase: Phase 1 - White, Phase 2 - Light Gray, Phase 3 - Dark Gray. (See main text for description of the significance of these phases).









 
 


!

  

5
5984.:.6:

""

 !

# 

/597=.59;=0

/5988,
598=,
-
59:4,
59:5,
59:8,
59::,
59;5,
59;80
#)

#!
/5999,
59:4,
59:5,
59:90
6
5988.;.;
5988.;.58
""
!


/5979,
597<.5988
0

/5985,
% ,
#!" 
 
 %
59880
%1!

7
5988.;.58

!" #"
/  
0
%
 " (

"

#
/59950
% ,
&!" 
 
1!

8
598<.56.5;
5996.9.:,
5996.9.6;,
!" #"
 


 #!" ,

 " (

 #
% ,
!"(
5996.9.74,
5996.:.<,
/! 
( 0
/597<0,

 " (

&!" 
 
"(
 
5996.55.8,
59:<.5.56
"

#
/59880
9
5994.6.6<

!" #"


$ 
(
 (

/59:5.5:5<0

/59=5,
59=6,
"(

59=8,
59=9,
59==,
5:54,
5:570
:
5995.8.5;

!" #"
'!
)!


"(
,
 "(
#!" 
 
# !1

;
5995.8.5;
5997.7.57
!" #"
 !"

# !
 #!" ,
# 


#
"(
,
 "(
/59790

/598'.59940

&!" 
 
)!1


133 G
@DD@8D8@D
@DD@8@?8@H2
@DD@8@?8AE2
'&+,*-,

*
$! !'-+
**
9 **!&:
!,0
&$
@DF@8@?8D2
@DFF8A8@D2
@E??8B8AB2
@E?A8@?8@C3
@E?B8B8A?
H
@DDA8@@8@G

'&+,*-,
$
*)-+2
('++!$0
'&)-!+,'*2
!*'0
!,0
&$
*&!+'
!1**'
@?
@DDC8@@8H

,!,!'&
-&

**!'+
%!&'*
,
,!%
'
(,!,!'&
 !'*
9@DE@8 '

'&+,*-,
'&
((*'.2
@DGB2
@DHD:
-1

 -+
9@DFH8G?:2
!.*&#
%!$$
&',
*'-*'*
0'*
$
!$'
9@DGG:2
-!$,
$$
9@DGH:
@@
@DDG8G8@H

'&+,*-,
&'&0%'-+

&#&'/&4
5!,0
%'/6
9<$
 +

$
!-<:

@A
@DDH8E8H
@DDH8F8@H2
@DEA8E8@D2
'&+,*-,
+,!&
& 1

 !'*
9@DDE8@DDG2
@DDH8@DE@2
@DE@8 !.*
&*
&
*&!+'
@DED8E8AD
*$'
@DEA:2
$$
9@DD?2
@DE?:
%'&+,*0
@B
@DDH8F8F

&*
&'&0%'-+

!.*
 !&
, 
'&+,*-,!'&

$ '&! 
@C
@DE@8H8B?
@DEA8@?8A2
@DEB8@8@A2
'&+,*-,
*'&!%'

!$.
 !'*
9@DDH8@DFC:2
$$
9@DCG2
@DD@2

@DED8@8AH
@DDD2
@DDF2
@DDH:2
"'*'%'
'
, 
!,0
9@DDB2
@DDE:2
-1

 -+
9@DEE2
@DEF:
@D
@DFC8H8@B

,!,!'&
*&!+'
-*
*(&,*
-,!
&$
9&*
*''
,!$
((*'.
%#*+:
@E
@DFE8E8@

,!,!'&
! '

*"$
$$
9@DFE:
!.*
!%
+!
'
, 
((*'.
*!.*2
,/&
, 
*! 
&
'**$7
+$- ,*
*
@F
@DFE8G8@F

,!,!'&
9 '
*!

$!+
!'/
'
-&

!$$
9&'
,!$+:
-,!
&$2
&*
&,
&
!+!'&:
 -*
@G
@DFE8G8AH
@E?H8B8B?
'&+,*-,
&,
&
 -* 7
 -*
&
'+(!,$
'*
&!&+
-,!
&$2
&*
&,
&
'+(!,$
 -* 2
-(+,*%
*'%
-!+

&'1;+
%!$$
&
'/&+,*%
*'%
*'&;+
%!$$

134 ;C
;?A@4B42

))$"
$'
$)
"3
)

$*(
"
*')
;?C>4;4B2
;@<>4B4?
%%'$+2
%*'(
'$!
'(
$
*"
$"()'*)

 
5%$(( 
(!
(
'

 (7
!
%))$"6
<;
;?AB4;;4<;

$"()'*)
$"
')"/

/
%*'(
"(
'$!
"
*()"2
"$
$)'
+'" 2
 $"
'"
)
"
<<
;?B<4;;4<;
;?B=4;4
;?C=4;4;?

$"()'*)
"$".!$*(
"3
+'" 2
"'
+
"-)
)$
"
'"($
*'
>6
))
 '.
-()(
<@
;@::4=4<=

$"()'*)
)"$(
 $*(
''
*)
" 2
$,"()'!
'$!
!$()
$
)
$)'
*)
! (2
*%()'!
'$!
)
!
$

'

;@:<4;:4;>

$"()'*)
'

'

5-4 '

'
,(
)
*)'
$
$ (
*)
" 2
$,"()'!
'$"!$

 +6

'
5
$/$6
5$"&*()$'62
,$,
'$!
")
"
! 2
$
'$"!$

 +
5  
;???2
;??A2
*%()'!
'$!
(*)
!
;??C62
,
$
*"

"$/
5$+'"$'
$
")
'*/


''
"
 )$
'*62
"
!$)'
$
*(
"$/
5  
;@==62
'"
$
'$.
$"

+
4A4;@

))$"
'"($
'""/

"
)
()')
))
$(
'$!
'(%$
$
/7(
!
)$'.

135 BI
AF@D9A@9BE
AF@I9B9F5

'%+,*-,
*% +'

%
*'

,
, 
%
'
, 
##
AF@I9C9C@
: ,*
##
='*, ##'=
'(%5
*'++
*'$
, 
AFCF9I9A
$ ##;
#$
%
 %
/ ,
/'-#
'$
, 
+'

-+5
%*
+#++
'%.%,7


**  '# <+
'-+
/'-#
#,*

- #,
'%
, +
+(',7
AD
AF@F9C9F
AF@H9G9AA
'%+,*-,
- +
%'2

 *
##
AFCC5
'** '*

-$# +

:09 * 

 *;
:;5
+'%
'
* 

 *5
*%+'%
'
 '#+

 *
:#
'2';
D
AF@F9AB9A
AFAI9I9AA5
AFBI9H9G5
'%+,*-,
*'% $'
# 

#'+
##
:AFBB;5
*%+'%
'
='*  %#=
 .*%"
!-+,
'/%+,*$
AFB@9H9H5
AFB@9I9AD5
 '+
*'% $'

# 6
$ ##
#,*
(+++
,'
+
*'$
* 
AFB@9I9AE5
AFB@9A@9AB5
- ,*5
%,-*
AFBB9A@9AA5
AFBC9H9C@5
AFBF9H9AA5
AFBI9H9C
H
AF@G9G9A
AFC@9G9AI6
AFCC9F9AG6
#
'
#'%+'
. #
#*2
:09 
(.*8$+'%
-, 
%#
AFCC9AB9AI6
AFDC
#5
0 +, %
##
*;

AFCG9F9E
AD
AF@H9G9AA
AF@H9AA9BH5
AF@H9AB9BI5
#
'
'.  '

#
#  '-+
**
: +- ,;
-, 
%#5
'/%+,*$
AFAF9F9BA5
AFBH9B9G5
0 +, %
##
'$(& 

+-+
:09 *'$
%'2
1
 *<+
$ ##
AFCG9E9BB5
AFEB9D9BF5
- +
%'2

 *;
AFGA9C9E5
AFGA9E9B5
AFGA9E9AB5
#'+
1
AFGB
C@
AF@I9C9C@
AFAC9A9D
: ;6
, , '%
- +
%'2

 *
##
:AFCC;5
+'%
'
* 

 *5
-, 
%#5
'/%+,*$
AFCA9G9BH

((*'.5
*%+'%
'
 '#+

 *
:#
'2';
*'$
%,
%
$ ##5
'%+,*-,
-(+,*$
*'$
+- ,
$ ##
CA
AFAC9494

*'"%5
'-,9 *'+
-&'2
/1*
,
, 
#
- % 5
 *
,
-, 
%#5
##
#
:*'$#1;
'
+*. 
1
*%*'8 '# %'
%
*'+
% .*+ ,1
:AFBA;5
'** '*

'# %'
-*'
AFAC
-*'
!,$'
:AFBB;7

CB
AFAC9494

'%+,*-,
#'%+'
*, %2

'-%,%,5
, *
'
+#

+,*%
1
#'/
, 
"
''*
'
%,'
:*'$#1;
+,*%
 .*7
$ #1
#,*
$
%' # ,15
/ ,
'$ %'
:=#
('*,* 
#+=;5
, 
, ,#
= *)-+

*+=
%0,
,'
, 
%
+, %

136 &#/

$%# 
$%#%

::
8=8=0:0:
8=8>0@099
1 $!
/=2-
! $%#&%
 %! !

+

'# -

+#!
$-
8=8?090@-
8=9=0?088
&$$
$ 
%! 
$
$%!3$
!'!#
-
$!
#
# $!

#!3$
/
:;
8=9=0?088

! $%#&%

!!$

'# -
!( $%#
#!
 %!
!  !,
&"$%#
#!
#,
:<
8=:;087097
1 2
8=;:0@09-
8=>708908@
! $%#&%
#

#

! $##%

:=
8=:<0909=
1 2
8=;:0@09
! $%#&%
 %
#

;
8=;80808:
1 2
8=;:0@09
! $%#&%
 %&#


1)0 &%#
!
#!  !



!$
!$-
! !
-
'# 
&$%
#!  !

2
!%#
!
&


*
!%! *!#/
!( $%#
#!
#
 %
%!
#!

$" !$$
18=;:2/

$
"#%
!
 #% 
!
& /
:>
8=;:0@09
1 2

! $%#&%
&
#

%!#

"$$
%!
$
(!(-
# $
#'!

#
 -
"

& $
*
8==:/

$!
%
%!
&


!" 


#&!

8==;/
:?
8=;:089088

! $%#&%
 #$

$
 %$
 #
!
%
##
!
 %!/

#
% #
:9
8=<807:08=

! $%#&%
$

$%# 
*
&%#
!
! $!
#% +

$%# /
!(
%

!!#
!
 %!

'#
1)0! $!
!(
!
!
&

$" !$$/

!
 
!  !
14
"!#%#
$42-
#% +

$%# 2
# $!
1,2

! $!

$" !$
 
)%
%!
%

$%
#  !

$" !$$
1$
!(2
&#/

$%# 
$%#%
:7
8=<<0880<
1 
!$
*
8=>92
! $%#&%
!$"

 !+
*
!
!
&$

 !+
*
#/
# $!
&$%
!( $%#
#!
%
!$%
1)0 &$

!
#

#
 
&

 !+/
! "!
! ' %
 !+
*
#2
%%
%%
$
"# %$



"!$$$$!
!

!#
!'#
;7
*#$
1%&*
$ 
 !+
8=7@2


:>
8==:0;08<
1 2
8=>70890:7.
8=>90:08;
! $%#&%
&



#&!

!#
18==708=?>2-

8==<-
8=?;
#
%
 -
"

1"&#$-
)0 %!#
!" 

 2

137 =C
;@A:4;;4B
5 6
;@A<4=4;:0
;@A<4=4;>0
"!&'%('
(&
&"%"

""
%&'%"
(%'
%
;@A<4>4;
5 60

;@A>4.4.
5 6
>
;@A<4=4;:
5 
 "&
,
;@A<6
 "&!
"
(!

 
"'" ,"%
"!
"
!'(%

 /
%'4%'4
"!&'%('
5+4!'(%

 6
%!&"!
"
"%!
%"! "

 

>:
;@A<4=4;:
;@A<4=4;>
"!&'%('
&)

&' "

=<
;@A<4=4;:

"!&'%('
 "!&"

&#!"&
,
&
")
&

&'%!
,
)%
 "*
'

""%
"
!'"
)%

" !"
57 
#"%'%
 &76/
!+'
'"
'
!
&'!
(%2
!
&'%!
&'%'
>;
;@A<4=4;:
;@A<4=4;>
"!&'%('
(!
" "
#"&& ,
%!'%.

><
;@A<4=4;:
;@A<4=4;>
"!&'%('
"
%"
#"&& ,
%!'%.

>=
;@A<4=4;:
;@A<4=4;>
"!&'%('
!'"!"

"
(%"
#"&& ,
%!'%.

>>
;@A<4=4;:
;@A<4=4;>
"!&'%('
%!&"
&$(-3
#"&& ,
%!'%.

% "!'
>?
;@A<4=4;?

"!&'%('

 #
!'
,
(!

%&)
5%6
%
'
!
!'
"%
'
!
''
%%'&
'
%"
5%)')
"
'
('
! 6
5"(%1
 4  "/
(-"

(&/

<;;/
"2A/
;@B@62
=<
;@C=4>4<
5 6

"!&'%('
%!!"

&#!"&&
,
&
")
&

&'%!
,
)%/

 "*
'

""%
"
!'"
5!%'
&'%!
5 
 
7
*&
( '
,
&
%'4%!#%!'&
" !"
57 
#"%'%
 &76/
%"
'%6
)%76

!+'
'"
'
!
&'!
(%2
!
&'%!
&'%'
>@
;@[email protected].
5 6

;@CA4;:4<>
5 6/
"!&'%('
(!
%)"

(!


;@CB4<4=
5 6/
;@C4=4 5 
 
7!
%"

<>
5 6
" &"6

138 Chapter 3

Historical Political Ecology of Water: Intersections of Water Flows, Infrastructure, and Municipal Governance

“I judge [water] to be the element most necessary after air.” - Solicitor General of the City of Lima, (Libros de Cabildos de Lima, 29 October 1671)

“...the public utility in the fair distribution of waters... has excited in all times continuing controversies.” - Ambrosio Cerdán de Landa, Lima Water Judge (1828:3-4)

139 Introduction: Historical Political Ecology, Hydraulic Archaeology, and Water Flows in Colonial Lima

Lima’s procurador general (solicitor general) called water “the element most

necessary after air” (LCL 29.X.1671),66 and indeed it was the natural resource most

frequently discussed by the Cabildo. The Cabildo concerned itself with everything from

canal cleaning, to maintaining the soil moisture around springs, to organizing religious

prayers and processions to bring rain. In reality, Lima’s gristmills formed a relatively

small part of the larger municipal water system in which they were integrated. In this

chapter I widen the lens to focus on Lima’s system of water management more broadly,

analyzing the water-related issues discussed in the Libros de Cabildos (LCL). It

examines the Technology-Flows-Governance triangle from the perspective of (water)

flows (Figure 1.6), to explore how natural and social processes intersected to influence

both the physical form of Lima’s water system (infrastructure and technology) as well as

the ways it was managed and regulated (governance).

Historical political ecology is the framework most suited to analysis of colonial

water use and governance (see Chapter 1, Table 1.2 for description of field). While such

a project can be approached from several angles, I use this concept primarily to mean

designing research questions derived from political ecology about power and politics in

patterns of natural resource use within a historical context (following the example set by

a variety of scholars, as described in Chapter 1). Surprisingly, even though much of this

work looks at themes of environmental change, natural resource management, or the

history of environmental ideas, few studies examine water use and management [work by

66 The citation style for the Libros de Cabildos de Lima (LCL) used here follows that applied in Gutiérrez (2005); reference is to the date of the Cabildo meeting (e.g., LCL Day.Month (Roman Numeral).Year). See Chapter 1 for more information on this source.

140 Swyngedouw (1999), Carney (2001), and Zimmerer (2000) being notable exceptions].

Therefore, in this chapter on water flows and governance in colonial Lima, I am

particularly interested in exploring themes and questions from the literature on the

political ecology of water, and especially on urban water use and governance. General

themes in this regard were listed in Chapter 1, but those of more precise interest to this

chapter include: the co-constitution of natural and social processes (Swyngedouw, Kaika,

and Castro 2002; Swyngedouw 2004; Loftus 2009; Linton 2010); the politics water

governance and management (Swyngedouw 1999; Norman and Bakker 2008; Brooks and

Linton 2011; Jepson 2012), relationships between water access and political, social, or

economic power (Swyngedouw 2004; Bakker 2011; Loftus 2011); the privatization of

water resources (Loftus and McDonald 2001; Swyngedouw 2005; Spronk 2010; Bakker

2011); and the role of water flows in creating urban spaces and contributing to urban-

rural relations (Swyngedouw 1997, 2004; Bakker 2003; Gandy 2004; Kaika 2005; Jepson

2012). Historical documents on Lima water are analyzed from the perspective of these

themes, within the broader Technology-Flows-Governance framework.

Work in the multi-disciplinary research area called Hydraulic Archaeology also

informs my approach in this chapter. This field, introduced in Chapter 1, examines

Spanish water management traditions from archaeological and historical perspectives

(Glick 1972; Cresswell 1983; Barceló and Kirchner 1988; Kirchner and Navarro 1996;

Squatriti 1998; Glick and Kirchner 2000; Barceló 2004; Glick 2005).67 In general, it

seeks to reconstruct the design of past hydraulic systems and from this to understand

agricultural organization and social/political relations (Glick and Kirchner 2000:276).

67 While this research group has mainly focused on the medieval Iberian Peninsula, some studies of colonial period Spain and Latin America follow a similar trajectory (e.g., CEHOPU 1993; Mateos Royo 1998; Fernández Tejedo, Endfield, and O'Hara 2004; see also Bell and Ramón 2011).

141 The major unit of investigation in Hydraulic Archaeology is equivalent to what

Swyngedouw (1999) terms the “waterscape,” or the landscape of water use, which is at

once both natural and social. While Swygedouw’s conceptualization of the waterscape is

largely confined to the theoretical level, hydraulic archaeologists apply a similar concept

that suggests a methodology for more material investigations. This is the concept termed

“hydraulic space,” which is defined as a space designed by humans to take advantage of a

natural fluvial system. According to Barceló (1996), a hydraulic space (“espacio

hidraulico”) has three features: 1) the aquifer or drainage area, 2) the local/regional topography in relation to the desired water conduction, 3) the irrigated parcels or other uses of water. The first two features refer to the natural or biophysical context that controls the quantity of water available and the direction of its flow. The third deals with the division of water between houses, fields, orchards, and other uses, and is determined by human needs. While the orientation and design of a hydraulic space is based on features of the natural fluvial system, the conduction and distribution of water into canals and pipes follows patterns that are neither natural nor casual. This water infrastructure is closely linked to the organization of productive activities and thus social relationships.

Through analysis of material aspects of the hydraulic space or waterscape, it becomes possible to arrive at broader understandings of water-society relations of the past.

There is a long tradition of studying water use in the Andean region, in both colonial and pre-colonial periods (Kosok 1965; Parsons and Denevan 1967; Barnes and

Fleming 1991; Gade 1992; Knapp 1992; Sherbondy 1994; Zimmerer 2000; Denevan

2001; Erickson 2006; Knapp 2007). However, the majority of these studies focus on rural zones or agricultural themes, giving little attention to urban or municipal water,

142 which included a range of household, industrial, and agricultural uses. Likewise, classic

works on Andean urbanism, and Lima specifically, do not pay as much attention to water

as is warranted. For colonial Lima specifically, with the exception of a few pioneering

works (Bromley 1942; Domínguez 1988; San Cristóbal 2005), water studies are still in

their infancy. In addition, while there have been several recent studies of Lima water

(e.g., Varon Gabai 1998; Seiner Lizarraga 2002; Urrutia Ceruti 2006; Palza Becerra

2006), for the most part these look at brief time periods, specific canals, or single

historical documents, without providing an overall view of water use and governance in

Lima’s urban core and rural surroundings. I have therefore designed this chapter to

address this gap in the literature. It is based on research I undertook as a leading member

of a team research project entitled “Colonial Hydraulic Archaeology: Authorities,

Infrastructure and Political Networks (Lima 1535-1796),” which analyzed both water use

(Infrastructure) and the politics of water management (Authorities) in urban Lima over a

period of nearly three centuries. 68 This chapter presents an overview of the range of water management issues important in Lima during the long 17th century (1578-1700), which was the period when the majority of Lima’s water system was constructed and put into use.

Legal archival sources have provided the basis for many of the Lima water studies

68 During the time I spent in Peru doing field and archival research between 2010-2012, I had the great fortune to participate in the project "Colonial Hydraulic Archaeology: Authorities, Infrastructure and Political Networks (Lima 1535-1796)," which was was funded by the Instituto Riva-Agüero (IRA) of the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú (PUCP), from January-November 2011 (http://ira.pucp.edu.pe/ grupo-arqueologia-hidraulica-colonial-autoridades-infraestructura). I co-directed the project with Gabriel Ramón Joffré (PUCP), and Gilda Cogorno (IRA). Each of the three co-directors was responsible for investigating a key period in Lima's water history: Cogorno (1535-1596), Bell (1578-1700), Ramón (late 18th century). Project assistants were Marcos Alarcón and Moisés Cueva. The project culminated in a public presentation and discussion of the results at a conference titled "Water and Society in Colonial Lima" held at the IRA in December 2011. Publication of the final report is now in progress (to be jointly published by IRA and Sedapal).

143 listed above. The foundation for all understandings of water in colonial Peru (and the

Spanish colonies in general), is a Law of the Indies from 1541 that stated that all waters were common property (Indias 1943, 57: Book 4, Title 17, Law 5). To use water resources it was necessary to obtain a title or license from the appropriate colonial authority, which was usually the local Cabildo or Audiencia (Indias 1943, 41: Book 4,

Title 12, Law 8). Apart from this concept, Viceroy Francisco de Toledo’s ordinances for the distribution of water in the Lima valley, issued 21 January 1577 (Toledo 1986[1568-

1574]) have informed the majority of information on water use in colonial Lima, and have been extensively discussed by other authors. These laws outlined how urban water was to be managed and how irrigation water was to be controlled in the fields surrounding Lima. It also ordered the creation of detailed maps of both urban and rural canals, which either were lost or (more likely) never actually created (Bell 2012).

Toledo’s ordinances were more useful as theoretical guidelines for ideal water governance, than they were for everyday on-the-ground application. Two later administrative reports were created to update and adapt the ordinances to reality, and are also widely referenced by other scholars. The first is Dr. Juan de Canseco’s 1617

“Distribution of water from the river of this city,” (Canseco 1988 [1617]; see discussion in Domínguez 1988). This was a report written to deal with some of the practicalities missing in Toledo’s ordinances. Namely, Canseco, who was a Water Judge (Juez de

Aguas, see below for description of post), created a registry of who was to receive irrigation water from which canal, and at what times. This distribution focused almost entirely on irrigation water, although it did reference the situation of Lima’s urban core within regional scale water use (see map, Figure 3.1). The second source, Ambrosio

144 Cerdán de Landa’s (1828) “General treatise on the waters that fertilize the valleys of

Lima,” was written in part because, after two centuries, Canseco’s distribution needed

updating. Cerdán was another learned water judge, who wrote his treatise to explain the

origin of Lima’s waters as well as to create a new registry of irrigation rights and

schedules. Overall, the continuity and longevity of water law in Lima was notable:

Toledo’s ordinances, which themselves were based on prior colonial laws, were used for

many years; Canseco’s distribution of water rights was relevant for over two hundred

years; and Cerdán’s treatise was valid at least through 1911 (Domínguez 1988, 121).

These three documents are all useful in explaining the ideal functioning of the

regional water system. However, the Libros de Cabildo de Lima (LCL) provide

additional and alternative material that complements these much-cited sources. The

Cabildo was the branch of colonial government officially in charge of water in Lima and

its surroundings, and it frequently discussed water issues in its regular meetings. The

LCL thus contain evidence about the daily functioning and management of Lima’s water system, including its original installation and ongoing maintenance. Cerdán himself recognized the value of this source, affirming that these books keep “very important news and solemn documents of the official orders given in all times, about the use, and distribution of the waters...” (Cerdán de Landa 1828, 24). In this chapter I employ a mixed quantitative and qualitative approach to analyze all of the references to water made by the Cabildo during the long 17th century, which was the period in which the majority of Lima’s water infrastructure was originally installed.69 Specifically I examine the

69 Here, “quantitative" means that basic counts and statistics were calculated about the references to the various themes (e.g., levees, pipes, etc) in the Cabildo records. These references were analyzed for trends, including frequency by year, seasonal patterns, concentration in specific years, and more. "Qualitative" refers to content analysis of the topics discussed.

145 period from 1578, (the date drinking water first started flowing into the fountain in

Lima’s Plaza Mayor), through 1700, (the point at which all of the elements of Lima’s water system had been well-established). From the empirical basis of all of the Cabildo’s references to water related issues during this time, I identify the Cabildo’s main concerns with respect to water, as well as the individual components of Lima’s hydraulic space, and the ways in which they were governed.

Overall, I argue that Lima’s residents experienced water flow, in its various forms, through the infrastructure (technology) and authorities (governance) established to use and control this resource. To speak of water as a biophysical entity or as a natural resource or environmental flow, without consideration for these other two components does not make much sense. Likewise, to speak of technological aspects of water management, without consideration for either the natural characteristics of the fluvial system or the politics and governance strategies behind hydraulic projects does not yield convincing explanations. Therefore, I consider all three: natural resource, infrastructure, and authorities (an adaptation of the Technology-Flows-Governance triangle, see Chapter

1). I analyze these features in a series of three case studies that highlight different types of water flows and the major components of Lima’s hydraulic space: 1) The river, the levees, and the levee commissioners; 2) The springs, the drinking water pipelines, and the pipeline commissioners; and 3) The rains, the religious processions to San Marcelo, and the “city’s lawyer for the waters” (San Marcelo’s official title). For each of these three cases, I examine the natural resource the city sought to control, its normal administration, the important public works undertaken by the Cabildo, and the individuals involved in the projects. I conclude with a discussion of the Cabildo’s capacity to govern and administer

146 water, as well as observations about the relationship between social divisions in colonial

Lima and the physical form of the city’s hydraulic space. Before turning to these specific

cases, however, it is first necessary to examine Lima’s hydraulic space generally, since

this was an evolving, debated, and contested concept of fundamental importance to all

aspects of water use and governance.

The Water Judge and the Definition of Lima’s “Hydraulic Space”

The first questions to consider are: What was the area under the authority of the

Cabildo? And how was the hydraulic space legally defined? Lima drew most of its water

from the Rímac River, in the form of various “mother” canals (“acequias madres”)

destined for agricultural and urban uses (Figure 3.1). The Water Judge was the authority

in charge of both the urban and irrigation waters. This position was created in 1556 by

the Viceroy Hurtado de Mendoza, who also established the ordinances the water judge

was to enforce (for additional details on the origin of this post see Cogorno 2011). The

post was well established by the beginning of the 17th century. Each year at its first

meetings in January, the Cabildo elected a new regidor (councilman) to serve as Water

Judge. His primary responsibilities were to enforce the viceregal and municipal

ordinances for urban and rural waters; which included the distribution of rights to

irrigation water, the maintenance and cleaning of urban and irrigation canals, and the

construction and upkeep of other infrastructure. For this, the Water Judge earned a salary

of 800 pesos/year.70 It was common for a regidor to serve as Water Judge multiple times

(consecutively or not). For example, between 1600-1699 (data exists for only 96 years),

70 This salary basically remained unchanged since the first Water Judge was named in 1556. The only exception being that between 1641-1647 the Cabildo changed the Judge salary to 1003 pesos, but with the obligation of paying for his own assistant. After these seven years they went back to the 800 peso salary.

147 only fifty-six individuals were elected as Water Judge. [Appendix C], and of these,

twenty-three were named two or more times. Julián de Lorca and Antonio Campos

Benavides were named the most times, at seven each.71 Finally, even though a certain amount of repetition is seen in the selection of Water Judge, this post did not require much specialized knowledge (at least during the 17th century), rather it was a privileged

administrative position shared by the regidores.

However, while there was stability in the annual election of the Water Judge,

there were also chronic tensions that persisted throughout the century, which manifested

from time to time in open conflict. These tensions mainly had to do with the territory

under the jurisdiction of the Cabildo-elected Water Judge, and centered on the authority

of the Cabildo to administrate the rural irrigation waters. In theory, the naming of the

Water Judge was for both the city and its rural surroundings (the area irrigated by the

Rímac); but in practice, very few Cabildo meetings dealt with rural waters, and nearly all

mentions of water in the LCL refer to urban water. For example, of the approximately

175 Cabildo meetings that mention canals, only sixteen deal with rural irrigation canals.

Maintaining the urban canals was no small job; in 1620 the Cabildo estimated that there

was at least one canal for each city block (LCL 9.III.1620). Among the responsibilities of

the Water Judge, one of the most regular was the annual cleaning of the canal that passed

through the Plaza Mayor, for which the Cabildo devoted fifty pesos each year. Other

important jobs within the city included installing and repairing canals, building bridges,

71 The years for which there is no data on elections are 1628, 1638, 1639 and 1659, this is due to lost folios in the original LCL. Thirty-three water judges were elected only once. The list counts judges who were elected as replacements, because the elected judge was sick, had died, or was absent for some other circumstance (e.g., LCL 2.X.1623, 20.III.1634, 14.I.1648, 11.V.1654, 6.IV.1668, 10.IV.1677). Lorca was named in 1622, 1626, 1629, 1634, 1640, 1643. Campos Benavides was named in 1660, 1661, 1662, 1663, 1672, 1674, 1677.

148 installing grates on canals to prevent blockage by debris, and maintaining canal intakes

(“bocatomas”).

The concern for urban waters did not diminish the Cabildo´s interest in maintaining its influence and power in the rural zone. The control and distribution of the irrigation waters, especially those of the biggest and most important canal (Surco), was a powerful responsibility, given that all agricultural production depended on irrigation (For agricultural production based on irrigation see Chapter 4). Distributing rights to irrigation water meant negotiating between influential hacendados (large estate owners), religious orders, and Indian groups (Refer to Chapter 1, Figure 1.4). It is not surprising that the Cabildo´s claim to jurisdiction over the irrigation water caused conflict between the other governing bodies with interests in this area, specifically the Viceroy, the Real

Audiencia (Royal Audience), and the Protector of Indians.72

The basic conflict is outlined in a statement made by the Protector of Indians to the Viceroy, of which a copy was read in the Cabildo in 1628:

Excellent señor, the Protector General of the Indians of this realm for the towns of Magdalena, Surco and Late says that it has come to his notice that some Spanish farmers have asked before Your Excellency, that a Water Judge be named who is not from the city’s Cabildo, in conformance with Don Francisco de Toledo´s ordinance... what the farmers have requested, and for what touches the Indian towns, is that Your Excellency name a Water Judge for the Country, because of the many inconveniences that have resulted from it being a member of the Cabildo and its regidores, because of the great responsibility they have with urban canals, which they can scarcely keep repaired/ the other because most of the regidores are hacendados in the countryside and by occupying the best fields in the valleys they do much harm taking the water needed by the other farmers and especially by the Indians of the stated towns, who for so many years have been complaining and making statements to the government and Real Audiencia that to have the execution [of water law] in the hands of the stated Water Judges does not have any effect, because it is in their own interest and [would be] against their own colleagues and so in another year it could pass that [a new water judge] does the same against

72 The Protector of Indians (Protetor de Indios) was an administrator under the authority of the King, who was responsible for defending indigenous populations and representing them in Spanish courts. The post was created in 1591, and at the beginning was generally occupied by an Archbishop (Borah 1985, 22). The most important responsibility of the Protector was to defend the Indians from excessive demands of encomenderos [holders of colonial grants of land and native inhabitants] (Lohmann Villena 2001, 54). The Real Audiencia was the highest court in the Indies (which were divided into a variety of Audiencias), and represented the King's interests (The Viceroy served as the president of the Real Audiencia).

149 them, the other that the stated Cabildo does not have a Cedula from His Majesty to name the stated Water Judges for the Countryside, or if so it has not been presented in the Government as it should have been... (LCL 1.I.1628, my translation and emphasis).73

In this explanation, the Protector of Indians called attention to the fact that the Cabildo’s

Water Judge was already sufficiently occupied in maintaining urban canals. However,

his main concern was that this Water Judge had a conflict of interest in the administration

of the Surco canal, given that he and his colleagues owned agricultural land that used the

irrigation waters. Moreover, the Protector of Indians alleged that the Cabildo did not

even have the legal right given by the King of Spain or the Viceroy, to name a Water

Judge for the irrigation waters. The Viceroy, to whom the complaint was addressed,

resolved the conflict in 1631 by communicating a Cedula Real (Royal Decree) ordering

“that they [the Cabildo] elect to the office of Water Judge a person who has no interests

in the water and who is satisfactory and trustworthy and who does not permit anyone to

harm the Indians by taking away their water” (LCL 29.XII.1631). From 1632, this

statement was read before the election of each Water Judge. In 1646, it was actually

applied: a regidor protested the election of Diego Bermúdez de la Torre as Water Judge,

claiming he owned irrigated fields in the Surco valley (LCL 1.I.1646).74 In general, this

conflict indicated the relative positions of the different colonial authorities. The Protector

of Indians took his complaints to the Viceroy, who in turn had authority over the Cabildo,

even though overall the situation remained basically unchanged.

The tension between city and country water reappeared in 1648 when the Viceroy

suggested that the Cabildo name two Water Judges, one for the urban waters and one for

73 The LCL contain various communications from the Real Audiencia (Royal Audience) stating that the Cabildo had trouble with or was unable to maintain the urban canals in a reasonable state (e.g., LCL 13.VIII.1607, 22.VI.1652, 8.X.1652). 74 Another example comes from 1656, when it was alleged that Pedro Albarez de Espinosa could not be Water Judge because he was interested in the water from the Magdalena canal (LCL 1.I.1656).

150 the rural irrigation waters (LCL 14.1.1648). The Cabildo disagreed with this idea, and

responded:

...having conferred about this all of the stated Alcaldes and Regidores found that it would be very inconvenient to have two Water Judges because there can be no separation made between the city and the county, it is precisely that they are all in one...(LCL 14.I.1648).

The Viceroy approved the Cabildo’s decision, and Bartolomé de Hazaña was elected

Water Judge of both the city and the country (LCL 15.I.1648). His term, instead of the

usual single year, was for four years; it seems likely that the Cabildo felt the need to

affirm its stance on this position and provide itself with additional stability.75 In 1670 the

Viceroy again mentioned the idea of having multiple Water Judges, suggesting that the

Cabildo name three: two for the city and one for the country (LCL 1.I.1670, see also LCL

1.I.1671). This time the Cabildo followed the Viceroy, naming three judges in 1670 and

1671. But, in 1672 it returned to the traditional system, because it was “very convenient that the water court not be divided between so many, rather it should be all together”

(LCL 1.I.1672).76

The experiments in dividing the Water Judge’s jurisdiction demonstrate two important patterns. First, that the Cabildo conceived of the city and country as connected, “all in one,” which made sense given that all of the canals were drawn from the same river and that some of the irrigation canals passed through the urban zone before the water reached the fields. Second, that this definition was maintained and defended by the Cabildo in order to preserve, consolidate, or increase its power, not so much for technical aspects of management (given that irrigation waters were only rarely mentioned

75 The only other time when a Water Judge was named for a period of more than one year was Antonio de Campos Benavides, who was elected for four years, 1660-1663 (LCL 1.I.1666). 76 Without explanation, in 1673 the Cabildo named two Water Judges (city and country), and in 1674 returned to the traditional system of only one (although, halfway through the year a second Judge- Commissioner was named specifically to inspect the Magdalena, Maranga and Legua canals- LCL 15.VI.1674).

151 in Cabildo meetings). Finally, it seems that the Real Audiencia also named a Judge for

the division of irrigation waters, although it is not known with what frequency, and the

relationship between these two judges requires further investigation.77

However, even given the Cabildo’s continuing insistence on the connection

between the city and the country, analysis of the LCL shows that the Cabildo routinely

occupied itself with the urban part of Lima’s hydraulic space. During the 17th century distinct elements within the urban hydraulic space became further defined and formalized. These elements can be distinguished by their functions and infrastructure, but also by the new Cabildo authorities created to administrate them. Of these, the most important were the Levee Commissioners (named annually from 1612) and the Pipeline

Commissioners (named annually from 1611). [Appendix C]. In addition, commissioners were named for sudden or occasional problems or projects, including droughts, floods, special cleanings, or new constructions. In the remainder of this chapter, I discuss each of these three categories, beginning with the Levees and Pipelines and concluding with a discussion of unplanned elements, mainly periods of drought or lack of rain. Each of these three case studies centers around a different form of water flow (seasonal river flow, drinking water flow through pipelines, atmospheric flow), and together they provide the basis for analysis of municipal water use and management throughout the period of interest.

77 This person does not appear much in the LCL. Here only a few details are noted. For example, Dr. Juan de Canseco, the writer of the 1617 “Division of waters...” described above, was named Judge by the Viceroy for the division of the waters of the River (he was a lawyer from the Real Audiencia). Also, in 1687, the Cabildo recognized that the Viceroy had commissioned a Judge from the Real Audiencia to distribute the water of the Surco canal (LCL 29.VII.1687). Finally, in 1688 the Cabildo elected a lawyer from the Real Audiencia to be Water Judge, going against its usual custom of naming a regidor (LCL 1.I.1688).

152 “For the shortness of time and the lack of money”: Seasonal and Financial Cycles in Levee Projects (Case Study 1)

Levees, called tajamares in colonial Lima, were containment walls erected to defend constructions along the riverbank from the strong currents of the Rímac. They were public works projects built by the Cabildo for the “security of the houses” (LCL

27.VIII.1612), and to prevent the river from “carry[ing] away some of the houses” (LCL

3.X.1613, see also 26.III.1588). The city engineers constructed them of brick and lime

(LCL 18.VII.1625, 21.IV.1637), river stone (LCL 14.VI.1602, 11.1622, 30.VIII.1623,

3.X.1636), and stone quarried from nearby hills (LCL 14.VI.1602, 7.II.1603,

21.IV.1637). A well-built levee had a deep and wide base preferably with foundations covered by stone and lime (LCL 11.VIII.1626), above which a containment wall was erected approximately six varas high (LCL 1.VIII.1626, 21.IV.1637).78 The ideal was

that the wall would be higher than the river at its highest flow.

The levees were especially important in combating the avenidas, or seasonal high

river flow or flash flood events. As previously described in Chapter 1, Lima was

constructed on the banks of the Rímac River, which like other rivers on the Peruvian

coast, flows down from the Andes to the Pacific in an East-West direction. Like other

coastal rivers, its flow level depends on seasonal rainfall, snow/ice melt, and lake

discharge in the highland headwaters, and shows notable annual variations: rising flow in

summer (rainy season in the sierra) and greatly decreased flow in winter (Peñaherrera

2004, 91). The annual cycle of the Rímac River was well known in colonial times, and

the Cabildo members understood that the river flowed heavily from October to April, and

very lightly from May to September (LCL 6.II.1601, 12.X.1620, 11.X.1622,

78 A vara was approximately 77-83 cm. See also San Cristobal (2005:98) on levee construction methods.

153 26.VIII.1626). In particular, the Cabildo observed two features: first, that river flow rose

on an annual basis: “the river rose as it does every year” (LCL 26.VIII.1626); and,

second, that the avenidas began in the month of October: “St. Francis’ day [4 October]

which is when the avenidas of the stated river begin” (LCL 11.VIII.1626).

Another characteristic of the Rímac River is that in its coastal drainage, (i.e. near

Lima), it becomes a braided stream. This means that its currents travel in multiple

smaller channels that interlace within a wider channel, carrying much sediment. The

deposition of this sediment causes variations in the trajectory of the river currents,

causing smaller channels to migrate laterally over time. The Cabildo noted this effect,

observing that the “river has inclined” (LCL 27.XI.1609) or that “the mother of the river

is inclined” (LCL 18.VII.1625, see also 26.VIII.1624, 27.I.1625). Here the word

“inclined” (inclinar) was used to refer to the migration of the channels, and the alteration

in the way the river flow made contact with the urban riverbank. It was also necessary

for the levees to provide protection from this type of hydrologic fluctuation.

Apart from these predictable regularly occurring cycles, the Rímac River, like

other Peruvian rivers, is affected by El Niño events. During strong El Niño events, due to

increased rain in the watershed, flow in coastal rivers can increase greatly, and unusually

strong avenidas may be noted (Quinn, Neal, and Antunez de Mayolo 1987). However

given that avenidas are annual events mainly influenced by precipitation in the high

Andes, and not with the excessive coastal rainfall associated with El Niño, without

additional evidence (especially reports of torrential rains on Peru’s north coast), Rímac

avenidas should not be used as sole identifiers of historic El Niños (Hocquenghem and

Ortlieb 1992).

154 With that qualification, researchers have identified several El Niño events for the

period of interest using descriptions in historical documents. Hocquenghem and Ortlieb

(1992) identify only 1624 as a year with a strong El Niño event, although they recognize

that the least amount of documentary evidence is currently available for the 17th century.

The Lima Cabildo noted an especially strong avenida in March 1624, which would

correspond with this event (LCL 21.3.1624).79 Garcia-Herrera et al. (2008) provide a

more extensive list; they identify El Niño events in 1617-1620 (extended event), 1623-

1626 (extended event), 1633-1634, 1644-1645, 1660-1661, 1685-1686, and 1688-1689.

The Lima Cabildo recorded avenidas on the Rímac for four of these six periods (Tables

3.1 and 3.2). Based on proxy records (not historical data), Gergis and Fowler (2009)

identify twenty-six El Niño years in the 17th century (with nearly twice that number of

La Niña years in that period). However, with the possible exception of the 1619-1620 El

Niño, neither of these records coincides strongly with the LCL avenida data. While this

relationship is interesting and has significant implications for additional applications for

Cabildo data, further exploration is beyond the scope of this chapter (although see brief

discussion of droughts below in section “Señor San Marcelo...”).

Overall, the seasonality of the river was what dominated Cabildo discussions

about the construction and maintenance of the levees. Generally, in the months of July

and August (the dry months) the Cabildo began to worry about the state of the levees.

Nearly 38% of the references to levee projects in the LCL between 1600-1699 are from

July or August (Table 3.1). In these months, the regidores spoke of “preventative

measures” (LCL 9.III.1634, see also 4.IV.1634), and noted that it was necessary to begin

79 This avenida was only noted because the Water Judge was "sick in bed" that day, and a different regidor had to be selected to attempt to avert flooding of the city (this avenida is referenced again in August 1624, related to levee repair, LCL 26.VIII.1624, 2.IX.1624).

155 repairs soon to leave “time to do the work and let it dry before the avenidas” (LCL

9.VII.1636, see also 5.VII.1619, 14.IX.1620, 26.VIII.1626). Even though the Cabildo

recognized the annual risk, these first calls only served to begin lengthy processes of site

visits and reports.80 In many years the repair works were delayed until October, the month when the avenidas began. Cabildo reports from this month often take an urgent tone, worrying that “the time is now very advanced” (LCL 9.X.1626, see also 11.X.1622).

Sometimes the Cabildo could not organize a project with enough time, and so it had to be postponed until the next year (LCL 14.VIII.1626, 15.IX.1620, 1.IX.1626, 9.X.1626). In the months with strong avenidas, December to March, most levee references report damages caused by the rising river.

This annual cycle suggests that the levees were not as permanent as would have been desirable. In many years the strength of the water carried away sections of them, and the frequent repair works kept them in a state of perpetual evolution. Therefore, it is more useful to speak of zones with levees than to speak of individual levee walls. In the

16th and 17th centuries there were four important zones: 1) San Francisco (first and oldest zone, originally constructed between 1560-1561), 2) Santo Domingo (second protected area, construction began 1576), 3) San Lázaro (on the northern bank of the river, construction begun 1619), 4) La Palma (small zone upstream from San Francisco, built between 1622-1627) (see map in Figure 3.2). Apart from these main levees, there were also numerous small containment walls on the Huatica and other canals, as well as on mill feeder and discharge streams (LCL 1.VII.1608, 11.VII.1608). All of these zones received repairs and additions in the 17th century.

80 Site visits and repair works had to be done in dry months to be able to see the levee walls and work on their construction. An inspection from March, for example, was inconclusive because the river “still carried much water” (LCL 27.III.1637).

156 The precarious and insecure state of the levees did not only depend on the rising

river. The quality of the work also depended on the Cabildo’s administration. At the

start of every year, the Cabildo named Levee Commissioners to direct the construction

and maintenance works (beginning in 1612). [Appendix C]. The commissioners were

regidores, and sometimes alcaldes or Water Judges. They worked with city engineers to

conduct site visits and inspections and to determine necessary repairs. Afterwards, they

negotiated with the Cabildo to pay for the projects. The Cabildo awarded the projects to

the engineers or contractors who offered to do the work at the lowest prices (LCL

18.VII.1625, 26.VIII.1626), sometimes stipulating that the engineer guarantee his work

for a determined period (LCL 30.I.1626, 3.IX.1627, 21.VIII.1637). The laborers were

shrimp fishing Indians, who were noted experts in riverine projects (LCL 11.X.1622,

21.I.1625, 29.I.1630, 12.III.1678), although sometimes mita Indians (LCL 12.IX.1603,

3.X.1603, 11.X.1622) or other day laborers were hired (LCL 6.II.1601, 3.XI.1613).81

The biggest complication was finding the funds to pay for the projects. The

Cabildo had four potential sources: city-owned properties/rents, the sisa (a type of sales

tax on staples such as meat or wine), charges to the parties interested in protection by the

levees, and money lent by private individuals. Among these sources the sisa was the

most used, but also the most controversial. The Cabildo had to gain the Viceroy`s

permission to begin to charge a sisa, and once the tax was implemented the Cabildo

would have to wait up to two years to collect the necessary funds. This financial cycle

did not coincide at all with the hydrologic cycle. Given the annual pressure of the

avenidas, the levee repair works required the money from the sisa long before it could be

81 The "mita" was an Inca institution for extracting labor from Indian communities that was adopted and adapted by the Spanish for public works projects.

157 obtained. Adding further complication, the Levee Commissioners were only named for

single-year terms, which made it difficult to plan long-term projects.

Analysis of individual cases of levee construction and maintenance can explain

additional details. The years with the most references to levee works are 1619/1620,

1626, 1634/1637, indicating that in these years the Cabildo discussed important and/or

complicated works82 (Table 3.2). In 1619 the Cabildo was concerned with the

construction of the San Lázaro levee, which had been under discussion since the strong

avenidas of 1605 (LCL 14.II.1605). This project followed the general pattern outlined

above: the Cabildo planned the project in the dry season (July-August) (LCL

28.VII.1619), found money (including from neighbors interested in the protection of their

private property) and executed the work before the annual avenidas (August-October)

(LCL 9.VIII.1619, 11.X.1619, 14.X.1619). Finally, the levee commissioners presented

the accounts before the end of the year/end of their terms (November) (LCL 25.XI.1619).

In 1620 however, strong avenidas destroyed the work completed in1619, especially in the

area around the bridge (LCL 7.VIII.1620, 8.VIII.1620, 14.IX.1620). The Cabildo blamed

the shoddy quality of the work, given that it was done “a destajo” (as piecework,

payment was for entire completed job) and not “a jornales” (at a daily rate, payment by

laborer/day) (LCL 8.VIII.1620). In August and September it was determined that there

were neither the funds nor the time (LCL 26.VIII.1620, 15.IX1620) to complete the

project before the next year’s avenidas, and consequently the Cabildo decided to repair

only a small portion of what had been lost (LCL 12.X.1620, 16.X.1620).

82 There are also a number of levee references from 1602 and 1603, which in general discuss the levee projects in the zone of San Francisco, but also include some interesting descriptions of construction materials. In 1684 there were 7 references to levees, but the majority dealt with determining the date the project would be bid on by the potential engineers/contractors, and do not contain important information about the levees themselves.

158 The 1626 case was not as simple. Strong avenidas were observed in January

(LCL 30.I.1626), and in August the levee commissioners determined that a new levee was needed in San Lázaro, and that the San Francisco and Santo Domingo zones needed substantial repairs (LCL 26.VIII.1626). The bill was estimated at 14,000 pesos, and the

Cabildo began discussing funding sources, which included asking the Viceroy for two years of sisa collection, as well as asking for contributions from interested parties (LCL

11.VIII.1626, 14.VIII.1626, 22.VIII.1626, 31.VIII.1626). In September the work was not yet started, and the Cabildo decided to focus on the San Lázaro work and put the rest off until the next year (LCL 1.IX.1626). But even so, there was not enough money, especially not enough sisa money (which would take at least two years to collect) (LCL

10.IX.1626, 3.IX.1626, 9.X.1626). In the end, only a modified (cheaper) project was carried out (LCL 9.X.1626, 16.X.1626, 20.X.1626). This 1626 case demonstrates two additional patterns: 1) When the Cabildo did not have its own money it went first to the sisa and then to interested parties, and 2) The conflict between the seasonality of the river and the availability of funds was fundamental to levee management.

The 1634 case follows a similar pattern, but with additional detail. In March strong avenidas were experienced (LCL 9.III.1634), and by April the Cabildo had begun to plan repairs (LCL 11.III.1634, 3.IV.1634, 4.IV.1634). In July the Levee

Commissioners made a site visit with representatives of the Real Audiencia, the chief cosmographer (cosmógrafo mayor), and an engineer. Their report detailed the repairs needed for the Santo Domingo, La Palma, and San Lázaro zones, totaling an estimated

96,698 pesos (LCL 27.VI.1634). The Cabildo began looking for money; putting together funds from the city’s rents and properties, the sisa, debts individuals had with the city,

159 and interested parties (LCL 27.VI.1634). By December the work was finished and the commissioners tried to secure the money to pay for workers and materials. They worried that the new commissioners, who were about to take over, would not respect the debts incurred (LCL 1.XII.1634). In 1637 there was a reprise of this case: in February avenidas damaged the 1634 repairs (the first strong avenidas since 1634) (LCL 9.II.1637). It was

decided the levees would be constructed again, this time from brick, and the project

engineer was required to insure his work for three years (LCL 16.III.1637, 20.III.1637,

26.III.1637, 21.IV.1637, 21.VIII.1637). Presumably this levee lasted, because there are

no more references to major problems for the rest of the century. But, even with this

success the financial problems continued: in 1647 the Cabildo still had not paid back

debts incurred in the 1637 work (LCL 13.IX.1647).

I argue that the city experienced the river’s avenidas through the levee

infrastructure built to protect properties near the riverbank as well as through the system

developed by the Cabildo to administrate this infrastructure. The levees became a type of

property that was simultaneously public and private, because the Cabildo shared the

responsibility of paying for their maintenance with the neighbors interested in the

riverbank zone (the Cabildo also sold lots located on top of the levees). It is very clear

that for most of the 17th century the Cabildo could not adequately build or maintain the levees. The cause of this situation was the perpetual conflict between the seasonal cycles of the river and the financial and administrative cycles of the Cabildo. In addition, many times it was necessary to construct the levees cheaply, with low quality materials, and without time to finish them well. As the Cabildo stated “it is not possible to do the work for the shortness of time and the lack of money” (LCL.11.X.1622). This repeated cycle

160 demonstrates both the inability of the Cabildo to make long term plans and its financial

weakness in general. This weakness was most evident when the Cabildo needed to

negotiate with the Viceroy for sisa funds, which was nearly every time the levees needed

repairs.

“From the source of the water until it arrives to the city”: Flows of Drinking Water through the Municipal Pipeline Network (Case Study 2)

The Cabildo and the Provision of Potable Water

The provision of drinking water was considered one of the principal

responsibilities of the Cabildo: “the first thing given attention in the foundation of all of

the cities of the world [is] that this element, inexcusable for human life, is provided with

cleanliness and security” (LCL 17.XI.1649). For this, the Cabildo carried out three

functions: 1) It secured the source of the water in springs on the outskirts of the city, 2) It

installed and maintained a network of pipelines, and 3) It reserved the authority to award

licenses for water drawn from the pipe for connections to private houses, monasteries,

and other institutions. Drinking water provision is best understood using the concept of

flows. The Cabildo had to control the flow of water from its source, through the network

of pipes distributing water to public fountains and private homes, and finally into the

drainage system.

For this, each year the Cabildo named Pipeline Commissioners (from 1611).

[Appendix C]. These commissioners were regidores and/or alcaldes, and in fifty-eight of

the seventy years for which we have data, one of the commissioners was simultaneously

the Water Judge (or had held the post previously).83 By the end of the century it was

83 Between 1611-1699 there are nine years for which there is no data on the naming of commissioners, mainly due to missing pages in the LCL.

161 common practice to name the two alcaldes and the Water Judge as the Commissioners

(from 1687), signifying that these commissioners were selected from the most powerful

members of the Cabildo. Their work included evaluating petitions for private water

connections, ensuring that no one took more water than their title allowed, and

coordinating the construction and maintenance of the pipe network in general.

The engineer in charge of the pipelines was another important person, and one

who gained influence over the course of the 17th century. In 1609 the Cabildo

determined that the municipal pipelines and public fountains should be maintained by a

specialist (LCL 14.XII.1609), and from 1625 the post was always held by one of the

official city engineers (see also San Cristóbal 1993).84 In reality, only three engineers

controlled the pipelines for the majority of the century: Clemente de Mansilla (1625-

1634), Juan de Mansilla (1635-1661) and Pedro Fernández de Valdés (1661-1706). The

continuation was notable: Juan de Mansilla took over when his father Clemente died

(LCL 29.III.1635); likewise Pedro Fernández de Valdés replaced Juan de Mansilla when

he died (LCL 1.I.1666). In turn, in 1706 Pedro was replaced by his own son Miguel

Fernández de Valdés, who had assisted him for many years (LCL 2.I.1706). The

inheritance and concentration of knowledge about the urban drinking water system in

these men was extraordinary. Finally, it is necessary to mention that the engineers

worked with black slaves, for whom little documentary evidence exists. In only one

84 This man was given a title that evolved from someone named for the “Cleaning and Dressing of the Pipes, Reservoirs, and Fountains of Water” in the beginning of the century, to the much higher sounding “Chief Fountaineer” (Fontanero Mayor) by its end (from 1689).

162 Cabildo meeting was Pedro Angola, who was Juan de Mansilla´s slave, mentioned by

name (LCL.18.IV.1654).85

The Springs

Securing the source of the clean water, in springs on the outskirts of the city, was key. When city residents complained of lack of water in the public fountains, one of the first actions taken by the Cabildo was to send the Pipeline Commissioners to conduct an inspection (“vista de ojos”), of the whole pipeline, beginning with its source (e.g., LCL

14.VI.1692, 1.IX.1617, 9.III.1620). Lima is located above an aquifer about 230 square meters and 400-500 meters deep (the largest in the region) (Arce 1990), which is fed by a combination of filtration of water from the cordillera and from the Rímac River. This aquifer supplied the numerous springs in and around the city, many of which were used in colonial times (and many probably before that). In the 16th and 17th centuries, Lima

drank mainly from two springs located approximately six kilometers from the Plaza

Mayor (Bromley and Barbagelata 1945, 41; Raimondi 2009 [1824], 257-258) (map in

Figure 3.3). They were located in the area called Ccacaguasi (an indigenous name),

which over time came to be known as Quiroz, for the local hacienda (large estate). The

principal spring was called Atarjea, a name still used today, which referred to the

reservoir and canal constructed in the area to direct water to the city.86 This first spring was used from shortly after the city’s foundation, and was the origin of water for the fountain in the Plaza Mayor (which functioned from 1578) (LCL 17.XI.1649). The

85 Mansilla said that Angola had been very skilled in repairing pipes and distributing water, and after Angola died, Mansilla complained that now he had too much work to do himself, and had to use two slaves (LCL 18.IV.1654). There is another reference to the two slaves who worked for Pedro Fernández de Valdés who “risked life by always being in the water” (LCL 15.VII.1667). 86 There are at least four definitions of "Atarjea”: 1. Sewage pipe, 2. Drain, 3. Reservoir, 4. Culvert; the latter two are most relevant here.

163 second spring was named Sabana, for its vegetative cover.87 It was located on private

lands, and was incorporated into the municipal system at the beginning of the 17th century. The location of both springs, topographically above the city by approximately

100m, provided the necessary inclination to canalize the water towards the main reservoir

(“atarjea principal”) and then to the main water tank (“caja de agua”) located next to the Caridad Hospital. From this central storage point, water was distributed into the public and private pipelines.

Taking care of the springs implied conserving their surrounding environment and protecting them from incursions of animals (especially cows and sheep), irrigation waters, and people. To conserve the humidity of the soil cutting trees or firewood in areas surrounding springs was prohibited (LCL 2.I.1618, 24.IX.1621, 23.II.1677, on planting trees 9.1.1691). The Cabildo forbid pasturing animals in the surroundings, to prevent contamination from manure (LCL 9.VIII.1619, 11.VIII.1621, 20.IX.1650,

29.X.1671, 20.X.1674, 23.II.1677), but also to keep animal hooves from compacting the soil and inhibiting the filtration of water (LCL 29.X.1671). In addition, it was necessary to prevent the entrance of local people who would leave garbage and other waste around the water source (LCL 9.VIII.1619). Finally, irrigators located above the springs could

also contaminate the water with runoff from their fields (LCL 3.VIII.1571, 11.III.1602,

11.VIII.1621, 23.V.1670, 19.VI.1699).

The Cabildo had three strategies to combat these problems. First, it physically

covered the reservoir and its canal, to prevent contamination (LCL 1.IX.1617, 6.X.1617,

11.VIII.1621, 13.VII.1635, 28.VII.1654). Second, it fenced off the area around the

springs and reservoir (LCL 12.I.1626, 23.I.1632, see also Raimondi 2009[1884], 258),

87 "Sabana" can be translated as "Savannah."

164 and installed gates with locks at the entrances (LCL 7.VIII.1606, 1.IX.1617, 13.III.1623).

This last action was not effective; people from the area broke the locks and bolts shortly

after they were installed (LCL 9.VIII.1619, 13.III.1623, 4.I.1626, 23.I.1632, 19.I.1691).

Moreover, even though the Cabildo continuously discussed prevention of contamination,

this problem persisted (LCL 29.X.1671). In 1671, for example, the lack of a real solution

was only too obvious: the owner of the animals who most frequently dirtied the area was

Ordoño de Zamudio, who was the regidor most often selected as a Pipeline

Commissioner, and who was considered an expert on the topic of potable water.88 Faced

with such obstacles, the third option left to the Cabildo was to install a guard at the main

reservoir (from 1671) (LCL 9.VIII.1619, 5.VII.1673, 9.XI.1688).

The difficulties in maintaining the purity of the springs was important, but the

biggest conflict occurred at the end of the 16th century, and dealt with the possession or ownership of the water from the springs. In particular, the spring in question was the second of the two city springs, which was located on the property of the secretary

Esteban Pérez, a private citizen. Pérez was using this spring to irrigate his fields when the Cabildo decided to take over the water for municipal use. In 1600, the Cabildo won official possession of the water after an appeal to the king, but under the condition that it would give Pérez water from the Surco canal for his fields at its own expense (LCL

21.I.1600, 24.I.1600). Even though the water from the spring became property of the city, for taking it from the land where it originated the city was required to reimburse the owner (LCL 7.II.1600, 6.III.1600, 17.IV.1600, 14.VI.1602). It seems that this solution did not function perfectly, because in 1606 the Cabildo discovered Pérez’s heirs irrigating

88 Ordoño de Zamudio was named Commissioner of the Pipeline thirty times between 1650-1683 (not counting 1659, and 1662-1664, which are the years data about the naming of commissioners is missing).

165 with spring water (LCL 9.III.1606). In 1669 the problem was repeated, this time with

Antonio de Llanos, the current owner (LCL 17.V.1669). With the two persistent problems of water theft and contamination it is possible to perceive the inability of the

Cabildo to secure the springs and therefore to control the flow of drinking water from its origin.

The cases discussing the possession of water also demonstrate the power of the urban zone over the water from the countryside. If we analyze the water system “from its source,” as a pipeline commissioner would do in an inspection, we see some additional patterns. For example, controlling the flow of water was crucial, from the irrigation runoff contaminating the springs all the way down to the cleanliness of the pipe that brought the water to the urban water tanks. As the city’s Procurador General (Solicitor

General) said in 1671, it was first necessary to consider “the cleanliness and security of the stated waters...for it is the same thing as if [the pipelines] had never been built if they don’t have water...” (LCL 29.X.1671). Additionally, while the pipeline network extended from the springs in the countryside all the way through the city to the drainage into the river, its components were not all equal parts of the whole. The network’s center of gravity was the water tank located in front of the Caridad hospital. Those who lived above this point in the network, including the farmers in the area of the springs, had to cede their rights to the sections lower in the flow of water. In the following sections I discuss the distribution of water below this key point.

Pipeline Construction

166 The three main municipal pipelines had been constructed by 1613 (Bromley and

Barbagelata 1945 see also LCL 26.XI.1610) (see map in Figure 3.4, and details in Table

3.3). The water for all three flowed from the main urban reservoir/water tank, located in

front of the Caridad Hospital.89 Pipeline 1 ran from this point towards the Plaza Mayor, ending at the Santo Domingo convent. This project was begun in 1552, but running water only reached the Plaza Mayor in 1578, and did not reach the Dominicans until 1588

(LCL 15.II.1588). Pipeline 2 flowed first to the Colegio de San Martin (Jesuit Property) and ended at the San Sebastian church and public fountain in this neighborhood. Plans for this project were discussed from 1590 (LCL 29.X.1590), and work was undertaken from 1595-1596 (LCL 14.II.1594, 1.VII.1594, 3.I.1596, 19.IV.1596). Pipeline 3 ran first to the Mercedarian convent, after which point it divided in two branches, one that went to the San Marcelo neighborhood and one that went to the Noviciado de la Compañia de

Jesus (Jesuit Property). Plans for this pipeline were initiated in 1594 (LCL 14.II.1594,

1.VII.1594, 9.VI.1595, 28.VII.1595, 3.I.1596), and construction occurred from 1596-

1612 (LCL 13.IX.1596, 20.XII.1602, 18.V.1612).

The Cabildo received petitions for private connections of running water from these three main pipes, to be installed in homes, monasteries/convents, and public institutions (like hospitals). The chronology of the petitions can be divided into four important periods (Table 3.4), which generally follow pipe construction. The majority of petitions are from the twenty years during which the three pipelines were constructed. In the first period, 1588-1592, all of the petitions were for Pipeline 1; in the second, 1593-

1599, most were for Pipeline 2; and in the third, 1600-1613, the majority were for

89 All of the pipes were ceramic, made by city potters, and some were glazed (LCL 14.IX.1660, see also San Cristóbal 2005:185-6). They were usually buried below the city streets.

167 Pipeline 3. In the rest of the century, 1614-1699, the petitions were divided between the

three pipelines without a special pattern. Overall, the petitions can be seen as following

the flow of water through the pipelines.

After these three municipal pipelines were built the Cabildo received various

petitions for the construction of private pipelines. These private pipelines only served

their final points; no one else could install a connection to take water from along their

courses. The person or group who requested it paid the construction of a private pipeline.

These pipes typically served religious orders or neighborhoods where the municipal

pipelines did not reach, which were called “far neighborhoods,” (“barrios distantes”)

(LCL 28.XI.1651, San Cristóbal 2005). The Cabildo received seventeen petitions for private pipelines between 1606-1695. Figure 3.5 and Table 3.5 offer an idea of the expansion of the pipeline network during the 17th century.

Examination of these petitions demonstrates that from the perspective of potable water provision, the city was divided into two zones: that of “above” and that of “below.”

The zone below suffered from continuous water shortages. This zone, identified as

“below the principal plaza” and “the bottom half of the city” (LCL 20.III.1629), included the “far neighborhoods” (LCL 28.XI.1651) like La Merced, La Encarnación, San

Sebastian, San Marcelo, and Guadalupe (see also LCL 9.III.1620, 29.X.1671). The word

“below” references their actual topographic position, but also their location at the end of

the pipelines (in other words, the lowest point in the water flow). These zones lacked

water because those located above (along the pipeline) took more water than their titles

allowed, letting little water flow to the end of the pipe (LCL 9.III.1606, 11.VIII.1621,

20.III.1629). Other “poor” zones were left totally outside of the network, their residents

168 had to buy water from water sellers or collect it themselves from distant public fountains

or the river (LCL 11.VII.1621, 20.III.1629).90

The construction of private pipelines was an imperfect solution to the problem of supplying the general population with drinking water. Each convent that constructed a private pipeline was required to also install a public fountain for general use. In theory, this would contribute to a more egalitarian distribution of water. However, in practice the convents did not comply with this obligation. For example, in 1670, the Cabildo found that none of the public fountains was running as they should, and some were not even built (LCL 3.IX.1670, see also 25.II.1671, 12.V.1671). Therefore, in the second half of the century, the Cabildo decided that it was also necessary to expand the municipal pipeline network. It built two new pipelines. The first was built for a new fountain in the

Plaza Mayor, and was finished in 1650. The second was constructed to serve the San

Marcelo neighborhood. Plans for this were initiated in 1668, although the pipeline was still not completed or functioning properly in 1692, mainly due to lack of funding (LCL

20.IV.1668, 20.VII.1668, 30.VII.1668, 16.1.1669, 12.II.1669, 16.IX.1692).

Concession of Drinking Water Titles

As stated above, the Cabildo awarded licenses for private connections to the municipal drinking water network. Titles allowed users to take “pajas” or “reales” of water from the main pipeline and direct this water to their homes, monasteries/convents or institutions. These were measurements based on the concept of flow of water through a pipe of controlled circumference. The real of water was the largest unit, based on the circumference of a
real coin. The paja was based on the circumference of a peso coin

90 In 1671, a mule's load of water cost three reales in the Guadalupe and Huérfanos neighborhoods (near #29 and 32 on map in Figure 3.5) (LCL 29.X.1671).

169 (Cerdán de Landa 1828, 23-24), and was equivalent to 1/16 real.91 In the LCL there are

references ranging from 4 reales to
real, and from 8 pajas to  paja. Water was

measured through a carefully sized opening in the water tank, called a “data,” that fed the

connecting pipe. The data was preferably made of bronze or some other equally durable

material to avoid fraud perpetrated by widening the opening and allowing more water to

flow through than the title conceded. Datas were installed in the presence of regidores, to

ensure that their sizes were correct (LCL 16.II.1595, 10.III.1602, 19.XII.1603, 9.V.1609,

1.IX.1617, 11.I.1619, 17.III.1625, 8.VII.1631, 5.V.1634, 7.X.1689). In addition, in many

cases water tanks were secured with locks to prevent theft of water through illegal

connections (LCL I.X.1604, 8.VII.1631, 15.I.1669, 12.II.1692).

To obtain a title to a paja or real of water, an individual, religious order, or

institution had to present a petition to the Cabildo. The pipeline commissioners, with the

assistance of the city’s water engineer, evaluated each petition to determine the quantity,

exact location, price, and conditions of the title. The first title was awarded to the Santo

Domingo convent in 1588. Between 1588-1699 the Cabildo received 102 petitions for

connections for piped water, of which seventy-three were given positive responses92

(Table 3.6). [Appendix D]. In total, these seventy-three concessions equaled

approximately 24.5 reales of water. Of the 102 petitions, fifty-nine were for individuals

91 According to the RAE a paja was “equivalent to the 1/16 part of a real of water, or a little less than 2 cm3/second.” Bromley and Barbagelata (1954:65) calculated that a paja was equivalent to about 5,072 liters/24 hours (much greater volume than the RAE definition). Like many other measurements, it is highly probably that there was variation in the size used by place and time period. Obviously variations in the circumference of the pipe could have a large influence on the total amount of water. The Lima Cabildo never discussed water pressure or rate of flow (e.g. a measurement like liters or cm3 per second). This variable would also impact the amount of water received for each title (see also Piwonka Figueroa 1999, 71; Palerm and Chairez 2000). 92 Two different terms are used: petitions and concessions. The Cabildo received 102 petitions and gave 73 concessions (at least). Of the 29 petitions leftover, there is no affirmative or negative response in the LCL. It is likely that not all of the petitions were actually recorded in the LCL. For example, no petition was denied, which indicates that there was an evaluation process prior to the Cabildo meeting when the petition was discussed.

170 for private houses, thirty-two for religious orders and eleven for hospitals and other institutions. The majority of the petitions were for private houses, however the religious orders received the greatest total volume of water (approximately 82% of total volume, or nearly 20 reales). Of these, the Jesuits received most: at their various properties they held titles for 8.75 reales. The average amount awarded for a private home was approximately

paja (about .02 reales).

The concession of a water title also included conditions and costs. Religious orders and hospitals normally received water free of charge, but many times with the condition of installing a public fountain in their neighborhoods, as described above (LCL

6.III.1619, 10.XI.1634, 14.IX.1660, 20.VII.1668, 31.VIII.1668, 23.IX.1687, 7.X.1689).

Individuals could receive their titles as official recompense for services rendered to the crown, viceroy, or cabildo (“mercedes”), or they could purchase them (Bromley and

Barbagelata 1954:43). For example, there were seventeen cases of mercedes of water to individuals who had served as pipeline commissioner, water judge, or water engineer.

When purchased, the cost of a paja varied from 100-500 pesos. Each concession included its own conditions, but the most common was that private water use was not to disrupt flow to public fountains.

These statistics are important, but there are two key variables necessary to understand the allotment of water. First, who asked for the water? The right to water pertained to a person/ religious order, not to a specific location. In general, only the most powerful residents and orders were able to obtain titles, there are no cases of non-Spanish

(Indian or African) applicants for private connections. Second, for where was the water request? The location of the property with respect to existing and planned municipal

171 pipelines was crucial; it was impossible to install a connection where a pipeline did not

already exist. This also suggests that a concession did not always indicate a running

connection.

Discussion

In general, the Cabildo was not able to provide adequate drinking water to all of

the residents of the city. Some problems were due to the slow construction of the

pipelines, like that of San Marcelo, which took nearly thirty years to complete. Others

were due to difficulties in controlling illegal water connections (LCL 21.I.1605, 7.I.1611,

2.I.1636), which were compounded by the fact that the Cabildo lacked a registry--either a

list or a map –– that detailed the legal connections.93 From a broader perspective, it is

easy to note social distinctions in the patterns of access to potable water. For example,

even though the Cabildo (and some religious orders) employed a discourse supporting the

necessity of providing water to all, and especially to poor neighborhoods, in reality it was

the most powerful residents and the monasteries/convents that enjoyed running water.

No titles were awarded to either black or Indian individuals, and Santiago del Cercado,

(the Indian neighborhood), only had one public fountain. Moreover, the spatial

distribution of the pipelines was one of the features that produced differences between a

rich neighborhood and a poor one. In this light, the division of water not only reflected

social inequalities, but also created and reinforced divisions between groups and zones.

93 The Cabildo sought to create a map of the pipelines and connections at several times. First, the Cabildo ordered Juan de Mansilla, the water engineer from 1635-1661 to make the map (LCL 2.I.1665), but Mansilla died without completing it. In 1691 the Cabildo asked the same of Pedro Fernández de Valdés, who had replaced Mansilla (LCL 2.I.1691). Even though the Cabildo insisted a second time, Fernández de Valdés denied he had any obligation to make the map and he probably never completed it (LCL 19.I.1691, 26.I.1691) (Bell 2012) As far as is known, the first map of the pipe network was made in 1787, of which only a copy from 1862 century remains (Ramón Joffré 2010).

172 The expansion of the pipeline network in the 17th century shows that although Lima’s hydraulic space was oriented by the physical location of the springs and the topography of the region, its form was not at all natural. The design clearly depended on the social geography of the city.

The municipal and private pipelines eventually drained into urban canals (LCL

11.VIII.1621, 29.VIII.1636), and in this way two aspects of the hydraulic space- pipes and canals- were combined. Following the flow of water from the springs to the drainage canals, we have travelled across most of Lima’s hydraulic space and have seen many of the ways the Cabildo attempted to control and administrate it. In the following section, I expand this exploration still further, to broaden the concept of hydraulic space and include new elements.

“Señor San Marcelo the city’s patron and lawyer for the rains”: Divine Authorities, Religious Processions, and the Heavens as Part of Lima’s Hydraulic Space (Case Study 3)

So far, I have focused on tangible elements in this chapter: the river/levee and the springs/pipelines. However, the Cabildo also concerned itself with another part of

Lima’s hydraulic space: the heavens (or atmosphere) as the source of precipitation. In some years the Cabildo observed that Lima suffered from “lack of rains” and “drought.”

While it is well known that it rarely truly rains in Lima; the region does experience fog precipitation, known locally as garúas, on a seasonal basis (the fog is normally present from May-October). Natural vegetation depends on the water provided by the garúas

(Ferreyra 1993),94 and the LCL suggest that they were also important for cultivated plants

94 Garúas, or fog precipitation, is a well-known phenomenon, caused by the interaction of warm air with the cold Pacific Ocean, which creates a coastal fog (trapped below a temperature inversion and against the steep slopes of the rising Andes). In this fog, the atmospheric humidity rises to such a point that the air can

173 and pastures during the colonial period (LCL 8.VI.1625, 5.VI.1630, 30.VI.1640).95 For

example, the Cabildo observed that without the garúas, “the grain would be lost and the

livestock would die” (LCL 5.VI.1630).96 In a normal year in Lima and its surroundings,

farmers planted fields between April and June (specifically: Beans from April-15 May

and Wheat from May-June). During these months it was important to maintain soil

moisture, and it was during this time that the irrigation canals were most heavily used

(Cerdán 1828:70-71, see also Chapter 2). The garúas typically began in May or June, just

after the planting, when less water flowed through the canals due to the river’s dry

season. For this coincidence the garúas were an important source of water for the

growing crops.

Therefore, the Cabildo also tried to govern or administrate the atmospheric part of

the hydrologic system. In the years when the Cabildo observed that the “winter has been

dry” (LCL 8.V.1625), that “there have not been garúas” (LCL 30.VI.1640), or that “from

so much heat it has not rained” (LCL 12.VII.1660) it organized prayers and supplications

to San Marcelo, to ask for his intercession with God for rains and the fertility of the fields

and pastures. Specifically, the Cabildo would organize a procession to bring the image of

San Marcelo from his church to the main cathedral, where he was left for nine days,

during which time prayers and masses were dedicated to him. In the 17th century at least

eighteen such processions were held for the rains. Of these, almost all occurred between

hold no more water, and condensation occurs, which is suspended in the air and falls to the ground (Peñaherrera 2004, 65). Natural vegetation not only serves as an index of atmospheric humidity, but it also acts to increase overall humidity and even encourages the generation of garúas in zones covered by plants (ibid). 95 Agronomists in the 1920s, however, found that garúas did not supply sufficient moisture for wheat (Abbot 1929). 96 Some 16th century chroniclers, including Acosta and Cobo observed the same (Cogorno 2005, 45).

174 June and August, just after planting, when water was absolutely necessary97 (Table 3.7).

As a possible climatic explanation, in El Niño years Lima’s winter is warmer than normal and “summerlike” conditions are observed much later in the year than usual (e.g., observations for 2012 El Niño by SENAMHI 2012). One such condition is the absence or decrease in frequency of the garúas or precipitation on Peru’s central coast (Manrique,

Ferrari, and Pezzi 2010; Oka and Ogawa 1984). Further coordination of data is still needed, but one hypothesis is that these sixteen years were related to El Niño events.

Four of the eighteen San Marcelo references correspond with the El Niño events documented in historical sources (Garcia-Herrera et al. 2008), while eight coincide by the reconstructed list based on proxy records (Gergis and Fowler 2009). In all records, the

1619-1620 period stands out as warranting further investigation (refer also to above discussion above about El- Niño and avenidas).

The Cabildo called San Marcelo the “lawyer of the fruits” (LCL 14.VII.1625), the

“patron and lawyer of this city for the rains” (LCL 12.VI.1646), or other variations on this theme (LCL 8.VII.1625, 9.VIII.1632, 14.VIII.1649, 6.VII.1652). He was officially declared “Patron of the Fruits” by the Cabildo in 1764 (LCL, Appendix, v. 20:644). San

Marcelo’s function was that of intermediary between Lima’s populace and God, and for that he was called “lawyer” (“abogado”). San Marcelo thus acquired characteristics similar to that of the Cabildo-appointed commissioners, and it would not be going too far to call him a divine hydraulic authority. The Cabildo’s role in the processions for San

Marcelo was of the most mundane: it paid the costs of the candles used to light the saint during his stay in the Cathedral. For this task, it named one or two regidores as

97 The two exceptions were a procession that began on May 29th, and another mention in October that referred to a procession that had already been completed (probably having occurred in the dry months).

175 commissioners. Even though the Cabildo carried out such an administrative function,

through the act of organizing the religious procession it demonstrated that it desired to be

the entity that governed and controlled the drought and the related agricultural

production.98 The Cabildo justified this solution by citing its success in previous years

(LCL 3.VIII.1647, 14.VII.1648), and similar prayers, supplications, and processions for rain and fertility were common in other places (e.g., for Chile see Piwonka Figueroa

1999, 70). Overall, this short introduction to a religious theme serves as a reminder that even though discussions of hydraulic infrastructure and authorities mainly deal with the technical and quotidian, the divine also formed part of colonial hydraulic thinking. This is a topic that certainly warrants future research.

Discussion and Conclusions

In this chapter I have analyzed the topics most discussed in Lima’s Cabildo related to the governance of water resources over the period 1578-1700, which was when the majority of Lima’s water infrastructure was constructed, and the Cabildo’s control over the hydraulic space formalized and consolidated. Overall, I have concentrated on two areas: 1) the intersections between natural resources, infrastructure, and authorities, and, 2) the definition of Lima’s hydraulic space in theory and practice, based on analysis of the categories used by the Cabildo. I have shown that Lima’s hydraulic space was oriented by the east-west flow of the Rímac River and the location of the springs to the northeast and topographically above the city. However, I have also observed that the installation of levees, canals, and pipelines followed the desires, objectives, and values of

98 The Cabildo's San Marcelo was in competition with San Isidro, the preferred saint of the rural zone. A statue of San Isidro still exists in the 16th century church (18th century reconstruction) in the Surco district of Lima, which was the main agricultural zone in the colonial period.

176 Lima’s human residents, more than it did natural features. In addition, with the example of San Marcelo, I have shown how the heavens/atmosphere was incorporated into the hydraulic space and have indicated how religious beliefs influenced the Cabildo’s administration.

The Libros de Cabildos de Lima (record books of the city council of Lima) demonstrate that it was regularly challenging and occasionally exceptionally difficult to govern Lima’s hydraulic space. One difficulty that was repeated many times was the inability of the Cabildo to achieve its basic objectives. The levees did not permanently or sufficiently resist the river’s avenidas and the Cabildo perpetually lacked the funds needed to repair them. Likewise, the ideal of securing a clean and copious flow of drinking water in the municipal pipe network was frequently confronted with the realities of contamination, illegal connections, and noncompliance with license conditions

(especially installation and maintenance of public fountains). Water governance was also marked by corruption and social divisions. At the highest level, the conflict between the

Cabildo, Viceroy, Real Audiencia, and Protector of Indians showed rivalries in the division of irrigation waters, and led to accusations of corruption of the Cabildo-elected

Water Judge. The rivalry between the Viceroy and the Cabildo was also demonstrated over the issue of who controlled the sisa or tax funds used to pay for levee repairs. Social divisions were made apparent by the distribution of potable water through public and private pipelines. While the Cabildo made grand statements about the importance of providing water to all city residents, in reality only the most powerful members of colonial society enjoyed running water. Moreover, the distribution of drinking water not only reflected social divisions, but also helped to create and widen gaps between groups

177 based on access to water. Overall, these conflicts, rivalries, and divisions demonstrate how Lima’s hydraulic space was the outcome of the combination of natural conditions

(water sources, topography, seasonality), social geographies (differences in wealth and power among Lima residents), and governance structures (rivalries between different branches of colonial government).

My discussion in this chapter is designed to address only a small fraction of the many ways that analysis of water can be used to reconstruct social and urban histories.

However, it clearly shows that the political ecology perspective is useful for explaining social and spatial patterns in the use and governance of water, in both urban and rural spaces. Of the many insights that political ecology can bring to water studies, and especially urban water studies, four thematic areas proved to be of particular significant to the Lima case.

First, my analysis demonstrates the core concept of the joint- or co-constitution of natural and social processes (Swyngedouw, Kaika, and Castro 2002; Loftus 2009), which

I express here through the inseparability of biophysical processes, water infrastructure, and municipal authorities and governance. Second, is the direct relationship between the design of a hydraulic space or waterscape and political, economic, and/or social power

(Swyngedouw, Kaika, and Castro 2002). Here, I have represented this social- environmental relationship through the inequality in access to water resources and uneven patterning of infrastructure. I demonstrate that Lima’s water pipelines can be seen as archipelagos instead of as networks (Bakker 2003): they serve some groups, individuals, and zones and ignore others. I argue that uneven water access in Lima also led to further social differentiation in the city, and thus actually shaped power relations,

178 instead of merely reflecting or responding to them (Swyngedouw 1999; Loftus 2009;

Gandy 2004).

Third, my findings highlight the conclusion that water management is frequently, if not always part public and part private (Loftus 2009), and that forms of regulation, financing, and ownership are implemented in different combinations in different historical and geographic contexts. Here, I explored this through the different financing strategies for levees, pipelines and other infrastructure. Fourth and finally, is the relationship between water management and urbanism or the role of water flows in creating urban space (Swyngedouw 1997, 2004; Bakker 2003; Gandy 2004; Kaika 2005;

Jepson 2012). Here, I have shown how the categorization of different water uses was a key component in the division of rural and urban spaces.

I argue that all of these questions and issues should continue to be explored in historical periods, including periods more distant than those usually considered.

Understandings of the close relationship between the history of water systems and the history of cities has grown in importance (Swyngedouw, Kaika, and Castro 2002; Gandy

2003, 2004; Swyngedouw 2004), however only rarely are periods prior to the 19th century referenced, let alone analyzed in depth in relation to the questions and concepts outlined above. Certainly much political ecology work deals with specific issues closely tied to current political economic contexts, but it is also the case that similar patterns and problems have been repeatedly experienced over many eras, and events of hundreds of years prior may have continuing and unexpected influences on the current day.

This is especially true in Spanish cities in the Americas, which were established at the very beginning of the colonial period, and as shown here, incorporated complicated

179 and sophisticated water systems from the beginning. For example, even though the city of Lima now draws most of its drinking water from distant Andean lakes, the Atarjea, or location of the spring used from 1578 to feed the original fountain in the Plaza Mayor, is still the location of Lima’s central reservoir and water treatment plant (SEDAPAL n.d.).

Likewise, powerful Rímac avenidas damaged public works projects along the urban riverbank recently in December 2012 (Chipana 2013) (Figure 3.6). Flooding urban canals (Comercio 2011), leaking pipes (Silva Nole 2011), and illegal water connections

(Comercio 2012a, 2012b) also still plague Lima’s municipal water management. Finally, and perhaps of most pressing concern, is that neighborhoods without water or sewage are still prevalent in Lima (Grau 2011), not to mention across the Global South (Loftus

2009). In many of these cases it is clear that a path dependency developed through the installation of infrastructure as well as the creation of urban spaces around water use technologies and governance practices. All of the current problems mentioned for

Lima’s water system can be linked to how the hydraulic space was originally set up in the

16th and 17th centuries.

There are important similarities between water use in historical periods and the current day, and clear advantages of applying a political ecology approach to historical water. However, moving backwards in time has methodological implications for the types of questions that can be asked and the types of data that may be available. Political ecology prides itself on its bottom-up approach to the analysis of political-economic aspects of environmental change. Consequently, much work in this field relies on interviews or ethnographic observations of individuals and groups not commonly represented in dominant discourses. These voices are often difficult to find in historical

180 documents. Closer attention to material traces left on the landscape (or in this case, descriptions of infrastructure in archival sources), can help to fill some of these gaps.

The work of hydraulic archaeologists, which specifically links questions of social power to water infrastructure, demonstrates the importance of studying physical remains and understanding how they were used. In this work studying “physical remains” includes using descriptions in historical documents, just as it includes on-the-ground and remote sensing-based survey are described in historical documents. For example, archives can explain day-to-day management of infrastructure, petty (although often escalating) disputes between neighbors, and ordinances for ideal management. Similar to what

Offen (2004) termed a “field-informed interpretation of society-nature relations in the past,” Hydraulic Archaeology, and related work, requires triangulation of ethnographic, biophysical, cartographic/geospatial, and historical data.

Finally, in this chapter I have provided a completely original overview of Lima’s municipal water governance during one part of the colonial period. This analysis of water flows, technology, and governance in the records of Lima’s Cabildo, has opened up many paths for future investigation of both specific cases and broader trends. It will be important to continue comparisons between this study of urban water governance and those of water use and management in other parts of the Andes and the Spanish empire, including provincial cities and rural areas. Likewise, much of the water technology and

(legal) customs practiced by the Spanish were of Muslim/Moorish origin, and these inter- cultural linkages, especially with respect to their importation to the Americas, require further attention. In sum, to understand Spanish and Latin American water systems nowadays, it is crucial to refer to their (pre)colonial history.

181 Oquendo to Carabayllo PAMPA La Granja Candela CANTO GRANDE

La Regla Q. Jicamarca Santa Rosa Aznapuquio Huachipa Taboada Mulería Carapongo Chavarria Pariachi MAN LURIGANCHO A CA Bocanegra E La Milla S Santa Clara Puente Palo San Salinas Vitarte Guanchiguaylas Cristobal a San Agustín ic Sn.Lazaro uat o Puente H rc Trapiche Viejo Su

Villegas LIMA CERCADO La Legua ATE CALLAO Azcona Aramburú Agustino Aguilar Pando Sn.Cosme El Pino Monterrico Rinconada atica Maranga u

H MAGDALENA San Borja Molina PAMPA GRANDE Limatambo

La Calera Teves

La Palma Urban Zone Surquillo o rc EL CASCAJAL Indian Reducciones or Territories u S Haciendas Amarillo Main Roads SURCO River Irrigation Canals San Juan Pamplona Springs CHORILLOS a Pachacamac Elevation (m.a.s.l.) <150 Morro >150 Solar >300 TABLADA >450 Villa DE LURIN >600 >900

0 1 2 3 4 5 Kms N

Figure 3.1. The hydraulic space of colonial Lima and its surroundings. Includes the main irrigation canals drawn

182 from the Rímac River, such as the Huatica and the Surco Canals. Source: Redrawn from Domínguez 1988. x400m

Mt. San Cristóbal

LEGUA

San Lázaro (Rímac) r e Conde de Superunda iv c R íma A R NG A ñete AR Ca M A Amazonas N E L Chancay A Ancash D Huancavelica Plaza AG Mayor M

Ancash

Camaná Plaza LIMA Santa Clara

Huánuco

Junín

Levee Zone - San Francisco Huallaga Oropesa Miro Quesada

Huari Levee Zone - Santo Domingo Junín Cayana

Puno Huánuco Miro Quesada M. Quesada Junín Levee Zone - San Lázaro Abancay Miro Quesada

Ayacucho

Paruro Levee Zone - La Palma Huanta

A

C Canal I N T 0 1 Km A

Canal (probable) U

H

183 Figure 3.2. Zones with levees along the Rímac River, Lima, 17th century. Base: Google Maps (street names are modern, for reference only). Zone with Springs “Caja de Agua” (Reservoir/Water Tank) Municipal Pipeline 1 Spring Zone 1 Municipal Pipeline 2 “Atarjea” Municipal Pipeline 3 Mt. San Cristóbal Spring Zone 2 Main Additional Pipelines “Sabana” Main Canal Caja de 400m Agua Main Canal (probable) x Urban Zone Rural Zone (Fields/Countryside) Hill Zone

LEGUA San Lázaro (Rímac) r e iv Conde de Superunda R ac Rím A NG RA ñete A A Ca M N E Amazonas L LIMA A Chancay C. de Agua de la D Huancavelica AG Plaza esquina de la plaza M Camaná Mayor

Ancash

C. de agua C. de agua de de la Caridad Santa Clara

Junín Miro Quesada Huallaga C. de agua Mt. El Agustino Ayacucho de Santa Ana Oropesa Junín Huari Cayana Puno Huánuco M. Quesada Miro Quesada Junín Abancay Miro Quesada

Paruro

Andahuaylas

A

Huanta C

I

T

A

U

H

N 0 1 Km

Figure 3.3. Connections of the two major springs “Atarjea” and “Sabana”with the municipal pipeline network and the important “Cajas de Agua” (Reservoirs/Water Tanks). The springs are located at an elevation of approximately 250 meters above sea level and the main plaza at approximatley 150 m. Sources: Bromley and Barbagelta (1954), “Plan[o] Topográfico” (1787). Base: GoogleMaps. 184 Public Fountain Monastery/Convent/Church x Private House 400m Hospital/Institution Mt. San Cristóbal “Caja de Agua” (Reservoir/Water Tank) Municipal Pipeline 1 Municipal Pipeline 2 Municipal Pipeline 3 Additional Pipelines Main Canal LEGUA Main Canal (probable)

San Lázaro (Rímac) r e Conde de Superunda iv R ac 14 ím A R NG RA ñete 10 J A Ca M A N E Amazonas E LIMA L Chancay F D N A D L Huancavelica A I AG Plaza U M Mayor R n 17 O G K H M 13 P a 8 Ancash 9 Camaná C Plaza 6 Santa Clara 5 B T C. de agua k d j de la Caridad 4 3 19 Huánuco i e 7 2 b 20 11 Junín h 15 1 18 f 16 Huallaga 1 Oropesa l g Miro Quesada 2 Huari 12 Junín Cayana

c Puno Huánuco Miro Quesada M. Quesada Junín Abancay Miro Quesada

Ayacucho

Paruro

Huanta

m Andahuaylas

A

C

I

T

A

U

H

0 1 Km N

Figure 3.4. Lima Pipeline Network up to 1699. This includes the three original municipal pipelines and the additional Santa Ana pipeline (private). The labels represent petitions for connections; it is not always possible to know the date of installation of a connection (or indeed if they were ever installed). See Legend on next page.

185 Sources: Bromley and Barbagelata (1954). Base: Google Maps (street names are modern, for reference only). Municipal Pipeline #1 Municipal Pipeline #3 A Plaza Mayor (Public Fountain) a San Marcelo (Public Fountain) (1594) B The Inquisition (n.d.*) b Antonio Xuarez de Medina (1594) C Plazuela of the Inquisition (n.d.) c La Encarnación (n.d.) D Viceregal Palace (n.d.) d La Merced (1598) E Jail (Royal) (n.d.) e Miguel de Solsona (1600) F Jail (City/Cabildo) (n.d.) f Juan Dábalos de Ribera (1600) (probable location) G Francisco Ortiz de Arbildo (n.d.) g Holy Trinity (1600) H Gregorio Ortiz de Aribldo (n.d.) h Andrés Díaz de Abrego/Abreu (1602), I Barrera (n.d.) i Diego de la Presa (1602) J Santo Domingo (1588) j Martín de Ampuero (1603) K Jordana Mejia (1588) k Juan Fernández de Heredia (1609) L San Francisco (1591, 1595) (transferred to Juan de Solórzano Pereira (1612) M Antonio de Abalos (1595) (probable location) N Iñigo de Hormero (1598) l Diego de Ayala (1610) (renewed by M. Hurtado de Hormero 1634) m Noviciado de la Compañía de Jesús (Jesuit) (1610) O Cathedral (1601, 1602) n Alonso de Carrión (1610) P Diego de Carvajal (1602) Q Fernando de Córdoba y Figueroa (1604) (not located) R Cipriano de Medina (1604) S Pedro González de las Quentas, with Juan Pérez de Additional Pipelines (Municipal and Private) las Quentas and Bernarda Niño (1608) (not located) T Hermandad, house and hospital of the Caridad (Charity) (1609) Santa Ana Pipeline U Colegio Seminario (Jesuit) (1610) 1 Francisco de Balençuela Loaysa (1604) 2 Santa Ana (Public Fountain) Municipal Pipeline #2 1 Lorenzo Estupiñán de Figueroa (n.d.) 2 La Concepción (n.d.) 3 Juan Gutiérrez Flores (n.d.) 4 Diego Núñez de Campoverde (n.d.) 5 Francisca de Salinas (n.d.) Not Located+ 6 Alvar Ruiz de Navamuel (n.d.) Álbaro de Alcocer (1598) 7 Diego Núñez de Figueroa and Grimanesa de Mogrovejo (1593) Fernando de Córdoba y Figueroa (1604) 8 Francisco de León (n.d.) Pedro González de las Quentas, 9 Bernardino de Tejeda (n.d.) with Juan Pérez de las Quentas and Bernarda Niño (1608) 10 San Sebastian (Public Fountain) (1594) 11 María Fajardo de Billaroel (1594) * n.d. (no date) signi es data taken from Bromley and 12 Colegio de San Martín de la Compañía de Jesús (Jesuit) (1594) Barbagelata (1954, 41-43) , not data from petitions presented 13 Diego de Salinas (1594) (probable location) tothe Cabildo 14 Hospital of the Holy Spirit (1594) 15 Compañía de Jesús (Jesuit) (1594) + For diverse reasons, it was not possible to locate some of the petitions. 16 Juan Martínez Rengifo (1594) 17 San Agustín (1594) 18 Casa de San José (1599) 19 Juan Manuel de Anaya (1603) 20 San Pedro (Public Fountain) (1605) 186 Public Fountain Monastery/Convent/Church x Private House 400m Hospital/Institution Mt. San Cristóbal “Caja de Agua” (Reservoir/Water Tank) Municipal Pipeline 1 Municipal Pipeline 2 Municipal Pipeline 3 Additional Pipelines Main Canal LEGUA Main Canal (probable)

19 San Lázaro (Rímac) r e Conde de Superunda iv 5 R ac 14 ím A R NG 4 35 RA ñete 10 J A Ca M A N E Amazonas E LIMA L Chancay F D N A D L G Huancavelica Plaza 13A I A Mayor U 22 M V 24 26 R 25 40 n 17 O G K 36 3 H M 13 P 23 Ancash 26 a 8 Z 9 AA C Y 39 27 Camaná 38 Plaza u 23 6 Santa Clara o 5 B T C. de agua 6 30 k d j de la Caridad 4 3 19 27 Huánuco i e 7 2 w b 20 11 21 Junín h 15 18 1 41 31 22 s 18 30 10 f 728 16 29 Huallaga 24 1 Oropesa l g 25 Miro Quesada 2 v Huari t p r 11 12 14 Junín q 8 15 Cayana c Huánuco Puno 21 17 Miro Quesada M. Quesada Junín Huerfanos Abancay Miro Quesada 29 37 9 Ayacucho Paruro Huanta 20

34 Andahuaylas 28m 33

A

C

I Guadalupe 32 T 12 A

U

H

0 1 Km N

Figure 3.5. Lima Pipeline Network up to 1699. This includes the three original municipal pipelines and the additional pipelines, both municipal and private. The labels represent petitions for connections; it is not always possible to know the date of installation of a connection (or indeed if they were ever installed). See Legend on next page. Sources: Bromley and Barbagelata (1954), Urrutia (2006). Base: Google Maps (street names are modern, for reference only). 187 . Municipal Pipeline #1 Municipal Pipeline #3 Prado Pipeline A Plaza Mayor (Public Fountain) a San Marcelo (Public Fountain) (1594) 17 Nuestra Señora del Prado B The Inquisition (n.d.*) b Antonio Xuarez de Medina (1594) (Recoletas Descalzas Nuns) (1654) C Plazuela of the Inquisition (n.d.) c La Encarnación (n.d.) D Viceregal Palace (n.d.) d La Merced (1598) Concepción Pipeline E Jail (Royal) (n.d.) e Miguel de Solsona (1600) 18 La Concepción (1657, 1682) F Jail (City/Cabildo) (n.d.) f Juan Dábalos de Ribera (1600) G Francisco Ortiz de Arbildo (n.d.) (probable location) San Lázaro Pipeline H Gregorio Ortiz de Aribldo (n.d.) g Holy Trinity (1600) 19 Hospital San Lázaro (1657) I Barrera (n.d.) h Andrés Díaz de Abrego/Abreu (1602), J Santo Domingo (1588) i Diego de la Presa (1602) San Bartolomé Pipeline K Jordana Mejia (1588) j Martín de Ampuero (1603) Hospital San Bartolomé (1660) L San Francisco (1591, 1595) 20 k Juan Fernández de Heredia (1609) 21 Pedro Fernández de Valdés (1690) M Antonio de Abalos (1595) (transferred to Juan de Solórzano Pereira (1612) N Iñigo de Hormero (1598) (probable location) San Illefonso Pipeline (renewed by M. Hurtado de Hormero 1634) l Diego de Ayala (1610) San Illefonso College (s/f) O Cathedral (1601, 1602) 22 m Noviciado de la Compañía de Jesús (Jesuit) (1610) 23 Francisco de Haro (1666) P Diego de Carvajal (1602) n Alonso de Carrión (1610) Q Fernando de Córdoba y Figueroa (1604) (not located) o Francisco Çeberino de Torres (1615) San Francisco Pipeline R Cipriano de Medina (1604) p Hospital de San Diego (1634) San Francisco (s/f) S Pedro González de las Quentas, with Juan Pérez de 24 q Francisco de la Cueva Guzmán (1653) 25 Hospital San Pedro (1667) las Quentas and Bernarda Niño (1608) (not located) r Juan de Figueroa (1653) T Hermandad, house and hospital of the Caridad s Ordoño de Samudio (1654) San Marcelo Pipeline (Municipal) (Charity) (1609) t Bernardo de Yturricarra (1667) 26 San Marcelo (Public Fountain) (1668) U Colegio Seminario (Jesuit) (1610) u Juan de la Preza (1689) (probable location) Gabriel de Vega y Rinaga (1668) (probable location) V Feliciano de Bega (1624) 27 v Mariana Zapata (1690) 28 Noviciado de la Compañía de Jesús (Jesuit) (1668) W Francisco de Carbajal (1646) (not located) w Gaspar Perales (1697) Niñas Huérfanas School (1669) X Pedro de Castro Ysasaga (1655) (not located) 29 30 Fernando Núñes de Sanabria (1692) (probable location) Y La Casa de las Recogidas (1668) Bernardo de Gurmendi (1692) Z Juan de Urdanegui (1680) (not located) 31 Additional Pipelines 32 Guadalupe College (1699) AA Lorenzo de Zarate Verdugo (1681) (Municipal and Private) Belén Pipeline Municipal Pipeline #2 Santa Ana Pipeline 33 La Recoleta de Belén (1668) 1 Lorenzo Estupiñán de Figueroa (n.d.) Francisco de Balençuela Loaysa (1604) Belén Street (Public Fountain) (1668) 2 La Concepción (n.d.) 1 34 2 Santa Ana (Public Fountain) 3 Juan Gutiérrez Flores (n.d.) Santo Domingo Pipeline 4 Diego Núñez de Campoverde (n.d.) San Agustín Pipeline 35 Santo Domingo (1668) 5 Francisca de Salinas (n.d.) San Agustín (1619) Ana de Zolórzano y Velasco (1670) 6 Alvar Ruiz de Navamuel (n.d.) 3 36 4 San Sebastian (Public Fountain) (1622) 7 Diego Núñez de Figueroa and Santa Rosa (1687, 1699) San Pedro Nolasco Pipeline Grimanesa de Mogrovejo (1593) 5 37 San Pedro Nolasco College (1689) 8 Francisco de León (n.d.) Santa Clara Pipeline 9 Bernardino de Tejeda (n.d.) Santa Clara (1624) Trinitarias Pipeline 10 San Sebastian (Public Fountain) (1594) 6 38 Las Descalzas de la Santísima 11 María Fajardo de Billaroel (1594) Compañía de Jesús Pipeline Trinidad (Trinitarias) (1690) 12 Colegio de San Martín de la Compañía de Jesús 7 San Pablo College (Jesuit) (1630) (Jesuit) (1594) San Martín College (Jesuit) (1630) Mercedarias Pipeline 13 Diego de Salinas (1594) (probable location) 8 39 Beaterio de la Merced (n.d.) 14 Hospital of the Holy Spirit (1594) La Recoleta Pipeline Incurables Hospital (1695) 15 Compañía de Jesús (Jesuit) (1594) 40 9 La Recoleta (1633) 16 Juan Martínez Rengifo (1594) Cercado Pipeline 17 San Agustín (1594) Las Descalzas de San José Pipeline El Cercado (Public Fountain) (s/f) 18 Casa de San José (1599) 41 10 Las Descalzas de San José (before 1643) 19 Juan Manuel de Anaya (1603) Not Located+ 20 San Pedro (Public Fountain) (1605) Santísima Trinidad (Holy Trinity) Pipeline Álbaro de Alcocer (1598) 21 Juan de la Cueva y Villabiçençio (1617) 11 Holy Trinity College (1645) Fernando de Córdoba y Figueroa (1604) (probable location) Pedro González de las Quentas, 22 San Pablo College (Jesuit) (1625) Santa Catalina Pipeline with Juan Pérez de las Quentas and Bernarda Niño (1608) 23 Francisco Gutiérrez de Coca (1631) 12 Santa Catalina (1646) Francisco de Carbajal (1646) 24 Diego López de Lisboa (1634) Pedro de Castro Ysasaga (1655) 25 Juan de Cabrera (1643) Plaza Mayor Pipeline (Municipal) Juan de Urdanegui (1680) 26 San Agustín Hospital (1657) 13 Plaza Mayor (Public Fountain) (1647) 27 Nicolás Fernando de Villavicencio (1668) * n.d. (no date) for municipal pipelines signies data taken from 28 Estudios de la Compañía de Jesús (Jesuit) (1670) San Andrés Pipeline Bromley and Barbagelata (1954, 41-43) , not data from petitions 29 Martín de Savala de la Masa y 14 San Andrés (Public Fountain) (c.1651) presented tothe Cabildo Theresa de Vilela y Esquivel (1670, 1691) San Andrés Hospital (s/f∞) ∞ n.d. (no date) for additional pipelines signies that the Libros de 30 Francisco Bermejo (1688) 15 16 Manuel de la Vega (1672) (not located) Cabildos de Lima refer to the pipline, but do not contain data about its petition or construction. + For diverse reasons, it was not possible to locate some of the petitions. 188

Month Total Years (# of mentions) Mentions January 6 1625(1); 1626(1); 1630(1); 1635(1); 1641(1); 1691(1) 1601(1); 1603(1); 1605(2); 1630(1); 1637(2); 1639(1); 1660(1); February 11 1666(1); 1689(1) March 11 1620(1); 1624(1); 1634(3); 1637(4); 1660(1); 1678(1) April 7 1601(1); 1603(1); 1630(1); 1634(3); 1637(1) May 6 1602(1); 1605(1); 1620(1); 1621(1); 1647(1); 1668(1) June 4 1602(1); 1634(1); 1637(1); 1684(1) 1601(1); 1604(2); 1607(1); 1608(1); 1612(2); 1613(1); 1619(1); 1625(1); 1627(1); 1633(1); 1634(2); 1636(1); 1641(1); 1652(3); July 20 1693(1) 1602(3); 1604(1); 1612(1); 1619(1); 1620(3); 1621(1); 1623(1); 1624(1); 1626(5); 1627(1); 1628(1); 1629(2); 1634(1); 1635(1); August 38 1637(1); 1641(1); 1653(1); 1672(2); 1678(1); 1684(6); 1693(1); 1694(1); 1697(1) 1603(2); 1606(1); 1619(1); 1620(2); 1624(1); 1626(2); 1627(1); 1633(1); 1634(1); 1647(1); 1652(1); 1677(1); 1679(1); 1690(1); September 21 1695(2); 1697(2) 1603(1); 1609(1); 1613(1); 1619(2); 1620(2); 1622(1); 1624(2); October 19 1626(4); 1636(1); 1665(1); 1692(1); 1695(2) November 4 1609(1), 1613(1); 1619(1); 1621(1); 1645(1) December 6 1602(1); 1606(1); 1612(1); 1627(1); 1629(1); 1634(1) Total 154 Table 3.1. Seasonality of Cabildo references to levee projects: Number of Cabildo meetings that refer to levee projects, 1600-1699, by month. Note that the majority of references occur in the dry season months (June-October).

189

Year Mentions Year Mentions Year Mentions 1601 3 1625 2 1660 2 1602 6 1626 12 1664 1 1603 5 1627 4 1666 1 1604 3 1628 1 1672 2 1605 3 1629 3 1677 1 1606 2 1630 3 1678 2 1607 1 1633 2 1679 1 1608 1 1634 12 1684 7 1609 2 1635 2 1688 1 1612 4 1636 2 1689 1 1613 3 1637 9 1690 1 1619 6 1639 1 1691 1 1620 8 1641 3 1692 1 1621 3 1645 1 1693 2 1622 1 1647 2 1694 1 1623 1 1652 4 1695 4 1624 5 1653 1 1697 3 TOTAL 154 mentions Table 3.2. Distribution of Cabildo meetings with reference to levee projects, by year (1600-1699). (Years with no references not included in the list).

190

Pipeline Date of Dates of Notable points Number of project progression and along the pipeline petitions for initiation completion of route connections project (1588-1699) 1 - Santo 1552 (Plans) 1578 (Water arrives Plaza Mayor, Santo 21 Domingo to the Plaza Mayor) Domingo 1588 (Title awarded to Santo Domingo) 2 - San 1590 1595-1596 Colegio de San 22 Agustín/San (Proposal) (Construction) Martín de la Sebastián 1594 (Plans) 1596 (Completion Compañía de Jesús, 1595 of the San Sebastián San Agustín, San (Initiation) fountain, but water Sebastián not yet flowing) 3 - San 1590 1596 (Progression La Merced, San 22 Marcelo/La (Proposal) of the project) Marcelo, La Encarnación 1594 1602 (Merced Encarnación, El (Petition by Fountain finished) Noviciado de la neighbors and 1612 (Water Compañía de Jesús plans) flowing to San 1595 Marcelo) (Initiation) Table 3.3: Chronology of the construction of the three original municipal pipelines, (1588-1699). This table details the initiation, progress, routes, and number of petitions received by the Cabildo for each of the three pipelines. For six of the 102 petitions it was not possible to identify the pipeline being referenced.

191

Pipeline 1588-1592 1593-1599 1600-1613 1614-1699 Total

1 - Santo Domingo 3 3 8 7 21

2 - San Agustín/ 0 9 2 11 22 San Sebastián

3 - San Marcelo/ 0 2 11 9 22 La Encarnación

Total 3 14 21 27 65

Table 3.4. Chronology of petitions for water connections (1588-1699). Distribution of number of petitions for water connections to the three municipal pipelines, during four periods.

192

Pipeline Date of project Dates of progression and completion of Number of initiation project petitions for connections Santa Ana 1606 (Petition by Santa 1606-1609 (Construction of water tank) 2 Ana neighbors) 1623 (Still not finished) 1617 (Renewed 1629 (Fountain finished, but water not flowing) Petition) 1630-1632 (Fountain broken, no water flowing) 1620 (Plans) 1643 (Complaints about the poor quality of the work) 1651 (Water shortage) San Agustín 1619 (Petition) 1629-1630 (Under construction but with 3 1622 (License awarded problems) and plans) 1640 (Construction of the fountain inside the convent) Santa Clara 1624 (Petition) 1 Compañía de 1630 (Petition) 1635 (Pipeline completed, but broken) 2 Jesús 1657 (Repairs) La Recoleta 1633 (Petition) 1 Las Descalzas de before 1643 1643 (Petition to the Cabildo for assistance with ? San José repairs) La Santísima 1645 (Petition for 1656-1657 (Construction) 1 Trinidad water) 1662-1665 (Construction) 1662 (Plans for private 1665 (Completed) pipeline) 1685 (Peticion to redo the work) Santa Catalina 1646 (Petition) 1671 (Project Complete) 1 1646 (Plans) Plaza Mayor 1647 (Plans) 1650-1660 (Construction) 1 (Municipal) 1648 (Plans) 1667 (Repairs) 1682-1683 (Repairs) San Andrés 1651 (Petition) 3 Prado 1654 (Petition) 1 La Concepción 1657 (Petition) 1659 (Repairs) 1 1657 (Plans) 1682 (Renewal of License) San Lázaro 1657 (Petition) 1 San Marcelo 1668 (Petition) 1672 (Problems with construction) 7 (Municipal) 1668-1670 (Plans) 1688 (Funding problems) 1692 (Fountain completed, but no water flowing to San Marcelo) 1699 (Repairs) Belén 1668 (Petition) 2 Santo Domingo 1668 (Petition) 2 1668 (Plans) San Pedro 1689 (Petition) 1 Nolasco Las Trinitarias 1690 (Petition) 1 Las Mercedarias 1695 (Petition) 2 Total 19 New Pipelines 33 Petitions for water connections Table 3.5. Chronology of construction of private pipelines and additional municipal pipelines, and number of petitions for water connections for each (1606-1695). Information from the Cabildo meetings about the construction of municipal and private pipelines. Text in italics indicates data from San Cristóbal (2005, 206-233). Pipeline is private, unless noted municipal.

193 Year Number of Petitions Volume of Water Conceded Individuals Religious Orders Institutions Individuals Religious Orders Institutions 1588 1 1 1/4 paja 4 pajas 1591 1 n/a 1593 1 1 paja 1594 4 3 1 1 real, 3 pajas 3 reales, 1 paja 1 paja 1595 1 1 1/2 paja 1 real 1598 2 1 1/2 paja 3 reales 1599 1 1/2 real 1600 2 1 2 pajas n/a 1601 1 1 paja 1602 3 1 3 pajas 1 paja 1603 2 2 pajas 1604 3 2.5 pajas 1605 1 n/a 1608 1 1/2 paja 1609 1 1 1/2 paja 1 paja 1610 2 2 1 1/2 pajas 1 1/2 pajas 1612 1 1/2 paja 1615 1 1 paja 1617 1 1 paja 1619 1 4 reales 1624 1 1 1/2 paja 8 pajas 1625 1 1/2 real 1630 2 6 reales 1631 1 n/a 1633 1 n/a 1634 2 1 1 paja 1 paja 1643 1 1/2 paja 1645 1 2 pajas 1646 1 1 1/2 paja 4 pajas 1653 2 2 pajas 1654 2 1 1 paja 1/2 paja 1655 1 1/2 paja 1657 1 1 1 paja n/a 1660 1 1 paja 1666 1 1 1/2 paja n/a 1667 1 1 1 paja 1 real 1668 3 3 1 1 paja 3.5 pajas 1 paja 1669 1 1 paja 1670 2 1 1 1/2 pajas 1 paja 1672 1 n/a 1673 1 1/2 cuartillo 1676 1 1/2 paja 1680 1 1 paja 1681 1 1/2 paja 1682 1 1 paja 1687 1 n/a 1688 1 n/a 1689 1 1 n/a 1 paja 1690 1 1 1/4 paja 1/2 paja 1691 1 1/2 paja 1692 3 5/8 paja 1694 1 1/4 paja 1695 1 1/2 paja 1697 1 1 1699 2 1/2 paja Total 59 32 11 1 real, 35 pajas 18 reales, 31.5 pajas 1 real, 6.5 pajas Table 3.6. Petitions for and concessions of water connections, by year and category (Individual, Religious Order, Institution), 1588-1699. (Years with no references not included on the list).

194

Month Mentions Years January 0 February 0 March 0 April 0 May 1 1656 June 4 1636, 1640, 1652, 1655 1620, 1621, 1625, 1630, 1634, 1648, July 9 1652, 1654, 1660 August 3 1632, 1647, 1649 September 0 October 1 1642 November 0 December 0 Total 18 Table 3.7. Seasonality of Cabildo references to San Marcelo processions (1600-1699). Mentions of processions by month.

195 Chapter 4 The Governance of Urban Wheat Flows

“Wheat is the nerve of the whole republic.” - Pedro José Bravo de Lagunas (1959 [1755], 100)

196 Introduction: The Governance of Environmental Resource Flows, The Columbian Exchange, and Wheat in Colonial Lima

Two mythologized events dominate understandings of wheat cultivation in

colonial Lima. The first is the original introduction of wheat shortly after the foundation

of the city in 1535. The second is the crisis and decline of its cultivation in the city’s

rural hinterland after the earthquake of 1687. The account of the introduction of wheat to

Lima, and to Peru more generally, has characteristics typical of legend. The basic tale is

that a Spanish lady, of the highest social rank, carefully cultivated the first few wheat

seeds in her garden until there was enough seed to plant a full field and then enough to

make bread. Depending on the source three different ladies are named: doña Inés Muñoz

(Cobo 1956 [1653]:406-407), doña Maria de Escobar (Vega 1985 [1617], 407), and

Beatriz Salcedo (Lohmann Villena 2010; see also Lee and Bromley 1935-1964 [1534-

1637]v. 16: Appendix; Rivera Serna 1978).99 All three were among the first women to arrive to Peru, and all three held lands in Lima and the provinces independently and through their husbands.100 While the timing is not known for sure, the introductions

likely occurred in the late 1530s and early 1540s. By 1550 wheat was being harvested in

large quantities from the irrigated fields around the new city.

99 Doña Inés Muñoz was the first Spanish woman in Peru, she was the wife first of Francisco Martín de Alcántara and later of Don Antonio de Ribera and the sister-in-law of Don Francisco Pizarro (Cobo 1956 [1653]:406-407); Doña Maria de Escobar was the wife of Diego de Chaves and later Martín de Estete (Vega 1985 [1617], 407); and Beatriz Salcedo, also known as Beatriz la Morisca, was the first woman, a moor, in Peru. She was the concubine and later wife of García Salcedo (Lohmann Villena 2010). 100 This history is an interesting complement to the legend of the introduction of rice to Brazil, and the New World generally, described by Carney (2004). In the rice story, it was an unnamed female African slave, who, having hid precious rice grains in her braids, was able to nurture the plant until it provided a useful food source. The Peruvian wheat story both parallels and contrasts the rice story. With wheat it was also a woman who was credited, but this woman's name is remembered and even celebrated (as is the case of Doña Inés Muñoz). In the version told by Cobo (1956 [1653]), the Spanish lady actually found the stray wheat seeds mixed into a barrel of rice, indicating a chronology in which rice was introduced to Peru prior to wheat.

197 The second myth is that of the end of large-scale, intensive wheat cultivation in

Lima’s rural hinterland (Flores Galindo 1984, 21-29). According to 18th century accounts, after the devastating earthquake of 1687, a plague descended on the crop and wheat was never again grown in abundance around Lima. This narrative was most famously recorded by judge Pedro José Bravo de Lagunas in a 1755 text he wrote to advise the Viceroy on the political and economic benefits of local wheat production

(Bravo de Lagunas 1959 [1755]). Over time, this earthquake-plague narrative became the accepted version of events (Flores Galindo 1984, 26-27), even though Bravo de

Lagunas also made many political, economic, and technical arguments for the reasons wheat yields remained low long after the earthquake (Bravo de Lagunas 1959 [1755],

141). Agronomists have since suggested it was a wheat rust infestation that caused the devastation (Pulgar Vidal 1946, 98). Meanwhile, historians have posited even more strongly that economic and political rationales far outweighed the environmental reasons for the decline of wheat at the end of the 17th century (Flores Galindo 1984; and see discussion below; Pérez-Maillaína 2000; Schlüpmann 2006). Even with this research, the earthquake-as-end-of-cultivation story remains popular.

Together, these two legends serve to bookend the usual narrative told about

Lima’s wheat history: Wheat was introduced soon after the Spanish arrival, it was carefully cultivated and protected until it flourished, and for about 150 years it produced an abundant crop that fed the city, and even provided some exports to Panama. However, the catastrophic 1687 earthquake and subsequent plague/infestation caused a decline in production that was never restored. While the cultural status of wheat as part of the

Spanish lifestyle in part accounts for the legendary aspects of its history, its economic

198 and political importance do more to explain the attention it was given by various colonial-period chroniclers and politicians, and later by historians. Wheat was one of the staples by which the colonial Peruvian economy was measured (Moore 1966, 67-68), and

Bravo de Lagunas (1959 [1755], 100) went so far as to call it the “nerve of the whole republic.” Therefore, rather than focusing on the endpoints described above, this chapter examines the period between the foundation of the city (1535) and the decline in wheat production (1692-1705). Within this longer-term period, this chapter looks at wheat in a landscape perspective and follows flows of grain from producers (and production zones) to consumers. It argues that even though single events (e.g. the earthquake/wheat rest infestation) were important, really it was the more gradual shifts in population and resulting demand, as well as social organization, conflicting economic interests, and governance practices, that led to the overarching patterns described in the classic narratives of Lima’s wheat history.

My examination of the introduction, expansion, and later collapse and decline of wheat production in Lima falls within the broader context of the Columbian Exchange

(Crosby 1972), as well as the early colonial “ecological revolution” caused by the introduction of European agropastoral systems to the New World (Merchant 2010). In particular, Spanish wheat agriculture entailed the introduction of mono-cropping, metal plows, hoofed animals (for threshing), and in Peru it included the redirection of water for both irrigation and milling. Wheat was thus situated within an entire system of production, which led to a variety of enduring transformations to the landscape. Wheat was also just one of the many crops, animals, weeds, pests, and diseases that made up the

European “portmanteau biota,” (Crosby 2009), and consequently was just one component

199 of new colonial agroecosystems. Wheat cultivation, combined with these broader changes in production practices and ecosystems, was vital to the advance of the Spanish colonial project. However, the landscape and ecological transformations that included wheat production also led to new vulnerabilities for both native and newly arrived populations (human and non-human) in the colonies. The 17th century “crisis” period introduced above is just one example of this vulnerability, and in the following I describe the interacting social-environmental forces that led to the decline of wheat production in

Lima during this time. In this case, as in many of the landscape and agroecosystem transformations of the Columbian Exchange generally, outcomes were the result of long- term developments and gradual shifts in land use practices and environmental resource governance.

In this chapter I especially emphasize this idea of long-term processes and gradual shifts in land use and resource governance. I begin this case study of wheat in colonial

Lima from the “governance” perspective of the Technology-Flows-Governance framework introduced in Chapter 1 (Figure 1.6). Specifically I am interested here in the

Cabildo’s governance of wheat flows. My understanding of wheat flows is derived from the combination of the urban metabolism and urban political ecology approaches described in Chapter 1. To summarize and reiterate important points from that discussion here, the basic concept is that cities are not unnatural spaces separated from nature and their surrounding environments, but rather they are closely connected to these environments through flows of energy, water, food, raw materials, and wastes (Bridge

2001; Gandy 2004; Swyngedouw 2006). Wheat flows, or food flows more generally, are

200 only one in a series of flows that converge within an urban space, connecting it to a wider rural hinterland even as they help to distinguish between urban and rural spaces.

To understand the flows of environmental resource it is first necessary to analyze their spatial scale and magnitude (hereafter, spatial composition of flows). However, it is also necessary to analyze the political composition of these flows, with special consideration for who benefits and who suffers from these flows (Swyngedouw 2006).

Furthermore, this more extensive analysis of flows includes asking who makes decisions about both the spatial and political compositions of flows, and at what (governance) level and (spatial) scale this decision-making occurs. In other words, it is important to pay attention to how flows are governed (Bridge 2001). Analysis of these three entwined components of flows--spatial composition, political composition, and governance-- together is my main goal in this chapter. To do this, I look at specific “moments of governance,” understood here as key points along an environmental resource flow, where the governing body or decision-maker intervenes, to either facilitate, interrupt, or otherwise regulate the flow. These moments of governance are often related to aspects of technology, infrastructure, and/or the manipulation of knowledge/information. In this chapter, my analysis of moments of governance builds on the introduction of this term in

Chapter 1 (and its application in Chapter 2); I highlight moments related to grain inspection, purchase, transport, storage, as well as those related to price control of wheat and bread (see additional discussion below).

Such an approach draws on an important tradition in urban environmental history that was pioneered by Cronon’s (1991) study of urban markets and rural hinterlands in

19th century Chicago. This work centers on how flows of grain (especially wheat)

201 changed direction and increased in magnitude within the context of interacting technological, market, and social changes. More generally, the relationship between urban demand for resources and the ever-expanding rural hinterland--and consequently ever-lengthening environmental resource flows –– has become an important topic in urban environmental history research (Schott 2004). I build on this urban environmental history tradition by applying the “governance of flows” approach outlined above to the historical context of the Columbian Exchange, and I argue that such a framework opens up new paths for exploring the introduction of European food production systems to the

New World.

My analysis of Lima wheat is firmly grounded in studies of the Columbian

Exchange that examine the intercontinental transfers of plants, animals, and diseases during the colonial period (Crosby 1972). The introduction of wheat and other European food staples was of critical importance to Spanish colonial strategy in Peru and elsewhere. However, as discussed in Chapter 2, not only is it necessary to pay attention to the biological entity introduced, in this case a seed, but also it is imperative to look at the entire system of production that surrounded the seed. While in Chapter 2 I analyzed technology related to processing of wheat, here I look instead at the human- environmental milieus, economic relationships, and governance practices in which wheat was embedded (see also Keith 1976, 64). I ask what were the methods of wheat production, supply, and distribution; how did the colonial government control the flow of wheat from producers to consumers; and, what do these methods and practices reveal about the role of wheat in the formation of colonial society and colonial cities. This provides a new approach to the old question of why certain crops were successfully

202 introduced from the Old World to the New (and vice versa) during the Columbian

Exchange. Specifically, I consider the role of governance, politics, and economics –– in addition to ecology –– in supporting and encouraging agricultural production and contributing to landscape change.

Following flows of wheat in colonial Lima makes a particularly good case study for such analysis. Lima represents an example of the establishment of a new colonial city, an early introduction of a European crop to a South American context, and consequently the development of a new system of food supply. Therefore, here I explore why Lima’s food supply system developed in the way that it did, focusing on the spatial and political composition of Lima’s wheat flows and their change over time. I show that rather than being a direct import of intact Spanish traditions, Lima’s wheat system experienced important transitions and transformations as local authorities adjusted and adapted it to changing colonial conditions over the first 150 years after its original introduction. Overall, I explain how the trajectory of the introduction, expansion, and decline of wheat cultivation in Lima was directly tied to changing environmental, political/governance, economic, and social features.

In the 16th and 17th centuries, the Cabildo controlled Lima’s grain, flour, and bread production and markets (Moore 1954:168-177, 1966:66-68). I argue that to exert this control the Cabildo concerned itself with the joint problems of both the direction

(including destination) and scale of grain flow. By interpreting the Cabildo’s actions according to the direction of grain flow (the location of production/consumption, imports v. exports), and the scale of this flow (both in terms of geographic scale and the magnitude of flow), it is possible to trace how the Cabildo’s governance strategies

203 changed over time. In this chapter, I develop an original chronology of Cabildo actions according to both direction and scale of grain flow, and show that its governance strategies fell into four distinct stages during the overall period in question:101

1. Local Production, Some Export to Panama (1535-1569)

2. Local and Regional Production, Declining Export (1570-1622)

3. Local and Regional Production, Increasing Imports, No Export (1623-1687)

4. Collapse of Local and Regional Production, Sharp Increase in Imports, No

Export (1687-1705)

In the following, I describe and analyze these four stages and the transitions between them. This includes analysis of moments of governance in each of these phases, as defined above. Each phase is characterized by significant differences in these moments of governance, which include: harvesting and processing (threshing, winnowing, cleaning), transport and shipping, measurement and storage, pricing and sale of grain, processing (milling and baking), and pricing and sale of bread.

By carefully tracing and analyzing Lima’s flows of wheat, while paying attention to how the Cabildo regulated their direction and scale, my study contributes extensive as well as more detailed insights concerning the narrative of Lima’s wheat history. In particular I use my findings to show how Lima gradually came to draw on an ever-wider

“hinterland” to supply its wheat. This shift occurred over a long period of more than 100 years, beginning with the production of wheat in the fields surrounding Lima, and moving outwards to the surrounding region, then to neighboring river valleys, and finally to highland sources and even more distant locations within the Spanish Empire (Chile). I show how this expansion occurred along with important transitions in governance, which

101 Considered from the perspective of consumption of wheat within the city of Lima.

204 showed a lessening of Cabildo control over wheat supply as wheat came to be sourced

from farther away. A rising merchant class came to control wheat supply instead, in

direct competition to the power of the Cabildo and the local hacendados (large estate

owners). I use analysis of this gradual transformation to examine understandings of the

Columbian Exchange, and the ways that the introductions of new crops during that period

are explained and evaluated.

Background and Methods: Historical Sources on Wheat in Lima

The typical narrative of wheat in Lima, as described above, takes its form in part

because of the major primary sources usually referenced on this topic. The introduction

of wheat is the territory of chroniclers (e.g., Cobo 1956 [1653]; Vega 1985 [1617]), who

each provide a variation of the Spanish lady story within their accounts of the discovery

and conquest of Peru. The decline of wheat production is usually explained by reference

to Pedro José Bravo de Lagunas y Castilla’s Voto Consultivo (1755). Bravo de Lagunas

was a judge of Lima’s Real Audiencia (Royal Audience). He wrote this text to advise the

Viceroy on the political and economic benefits of the reestablishment of serious wheat production in Lima’s rural hinterland, and of lessening Lima’s dependence on imported wheat from Chile. Overall, the use of these easily available published sources has tended to result in emphasis on the two endpoints, and has contributed to the repetition of the classic wheat narrative described above (e.g., Pulgar Vidal 1946, 98; see also Lee and

Bromley 1935-1964 [1534-1637], 612-613v.16 Appendix ).

Several historians have put forth alternate explanations to both counter and extending this standard narrative of Peruvian and New World wheat. These alternative

205 accounts mainly draw on spatial models of production and exchange, the circulation of goods, and the organization of markets. Chief among these is economic historian Carlos

Sempat Assadourian who examined wheat production and circulation in a broader perspective, looking at the spatial organization of major production zones and markets throughout South America (Assadourian 1982). He argued that the Andean region had two major markets: Potosí and Lima, which both acted as poles to attract products from diverse areas (ibid: 111-112). Potosí, the large mining city located at a very high altitude, was unable to produce any of its own wheat and always required imports from other regions, such as Cochabamba (Bolivia).102 Lima was able to produce some of its own grain, and it imported the remainder by sea, mostly from the irrigated river valleys directly to the north and south of the city, but also from more distant locations (ibid: 146-

150). This more complex geography of circuits and flows makes Lima a compelling case study for analysis of flows of grain over time. Assadourian’s continent-scale, circulation- based perspective also leads to understandings of wheat based less on mythologized events, and more on economic rationales and explanations of flows.

The second major historian who has analyzed Lima’s wheat is Alberto Flores

Galindo. Flores Galindo’s (1984) famous critique of the earthquake/plague portion of the wheat narrative parallels some of the concepts discussed by Assadourian. He analyzed inter-colonial trade and economic relationships based on the circulation of goods.

Specifically, he considered the economics of importing wheat from Chile, the political pressure exerted by merchants and bakers to discredit the quality of local Lima wheat, and the rise of sugarcane production on Peru’s coast (with Chile as the main export

102 See Larson (1998) on the application of Assadourian's theories to agricultural production in Cochabamba, Bolivia.

206 market). Both of these historians present models that can be further examined with more

detailed local data, as was the challenge taken up in more recent works by Pérez-

Maillaína (2000) on the wheat crisis and (Schlüpmann 2006) on trade with Chile, both of

which present data discussed below (Section: “Phase 4...”).

Cabildo records provide an alternative primary source for studying Lima wheat

that until now has not been comprehensively or systematically analyzed on this topic.103

The Libros de Cabildos de Lima (LCL) detail important aspects of wheat governance

over the entire period of interest, which helps to better document continuity and change

in wheat policy over time and adds nuance to the overarching narrative described

above.104 The LCL provides information on wheat and bread prices, policies on wheat importation and exportation, the Cabildo’s responsibilities with respect to wheat supply, and the installation and eventual closure of Lima’s Alhóndiga (municipal granary). The

Cabildo discussed these topics especially during times of hardship and shortage, but also during the course of normal supply and even abundance. Therefore, the LCL provide information on wheat in both normal and special situations. Unsurprisingly, the Cabildo documented the aspects of flows of wheat that it controlled. Its strategy was to administrate wheat at key points along this flow (moments of governance): the fields where wheat was irrigated, harvested, threshed, winnowed, cleaned, and sold; the ships where wheat was transported and unloaded in the port; the mills where it was ground into flour in the city center; and the storehouses where grain and flour were sold to bakers and other consumers. The LCL are not the best source, however, for understanding areas

103 Rivera Serna (1978) bases almost his entire chapter on the 16th century introduction of wheat and mills on Cabildo data, which he does not cite. 104 The citation style for the Libros de Cabildos de Lima (LCL) used here follows that applied in Gutiérrez (2005); reference is to the date of the Cabildo meeting (e.g., LCL Day.Month (Roman Numeral).Year). See Chapter 1 for more information on this source.

207 outside the Cabildo’s authority, such as: agricultural practices; the economics, politics, and social aspects of hacienda (large estate) and chacára (smaller field) wheat production; or the details on importation of wheat to Lima’s port of Callao.

The methods I apply in this chapter’s analysis of wheat in the LCL are similar to those used in the study of milling and water governance in Chapters 2 and 3. All LCL references to wheat, flour, bread, the Alhóndiga, and other related topics were compiled for the period 1535-1705. From these references chronologies and data tables were elaborated on specific sub-topics, which are included here as appendices. These appendices contain information on 1) Trips by Cabildo representatives to buy or inspect wheat (Appendix E); 2) Alhóndiga officials and operation (Appendix F); 3) Wheat and

Bread Prices (Appendix G).

Phase 1: The Introduction of Wheat to Lima and the Establishment of the Cabildo’s System of Wheat Governance (1535-1569)

The exact date of the introduction of wheat to Lima is probably unknowable. The chronicler accounts described above indicate that the event occurred in the late 1530s, but do not refer to a specific year. However, Cabildo information adds some detail to this chronology. In the first LCL, which dates from the founding of the city in 1535 to 1539, there is not a single mention of wheat. Instead, the Cabildo was highly concerned with the supply and price of maize (e.g, LCL 16.IV.1537, 17.I.1539, 11.VII.1539). The first

LCL indication of wheat comes in 1544, with Alonso Palomino’s petition to the Cabildo to build a gristmill next to the already existing Avendaño mill (LCL 7.VII.1544,

208 14.VII.1544, see Chapter 2).105 A third mill was mentioned in 1548 (LCL 17.XII.1548),

and in 1549 the Cabildo set the first official price of wheat bread (LCL 31.III.1549). In

1549 the Cabildo also issued two ordinances: one requiring all ships carrying wheat into

the port of Callao to bring it to Lima, the other prohibiting the export of wheat, flour, or

hardtack (bizcocho) (LCL 26.VI.1549, 16.VIII.1549). While these ordinances suggest

that not all the wheat consumed in the city during this early period was locally grown,

overall this series of events indicates that wheat became known in Lima in the 1540s,

likely through a mix of local cultivation and import from other locations. There was a

steady increase in availability and abundance of wheat throughout the 1550s, with bread

prices decreasing from 20-23 libras of bread per peso in 1549 to 32-36 libras/peso in the mid to late 1550s (LCL 31.III.1549, 28.V.1549, 26.VI.1549, 30.VII.1549, 30.V.1551,

21.VIII.1551, 20.XI.1551, 23.VI.1553, 30.VI.1553, 1.IX.1553, 26.IV.1558, and see

Appendix G).106 Finally, in 1558 the Cabildo acknowledged that wheat was so abundant

that even “the poor and the Indians eat it now” (LCL 26.IV.1558).

After initial introduction, wheat became one of the most important crops

cultivated in the fields in Lima’s “valleys,” which was the name given to the lands

irrigated by each of the twelve major canals derived from the Rímac River (Domínguez

1988; see also map in Figure 1.1). In this earliest period, prior to the 1560s, wheat was

cultivated on encomiendas (grants of Indians and their labor to Spanish conquistadores)

105 This reference comes from the third Libro de Cabildo. Unfortunately, the second book has been missing since early colonial times, and so we have no information for the key period of 1540-1544. The third and fourth books, covering the period 1544-1553 provide the best indications for the introduction of wheat to Lima. 106 The Libra was an old Castillian unit of measurement. 1 Libra=16 onzas, or about 460 grams. Bread was sold by weight, by the onza (ounce). One onza = 28g (approx). More weight per peso coin meant lower wheat prices. Unless otherwise mentioned, in this chapter "peso" refers to the silver peso corriente of eight reales, also sometimes called "patacón." There were eight reales in one peso coin (the origin of the term "pieces of eight"). A price of 3 pesos and 4 reales is referred to here as 3.5 pesos.

209 as well as smaller-scale chacáras (smaller land grants/fields owned by Spanish). After

the 1560s, the institution of the hacienda (large estates owned by Spanish, many ex-

econmenderos) grew in popularity and came to dominate agricultural production in Lima

and its surroundings (Keith 1976). Apart from wheat, important hacienda crops included

sugarcane, olives, and alfalfa. Maize, beans, and other fruits and vegetables were also

produced, but to a lesser extent (Vergara Ormeño 1995). Wheat was planted each year in

May and June using irrigation waters from the major canals, and was harvested in March

(Cerdán de Landa 1828, 70-71). As the Cabildo described, “always at this time [March]

wheat prices are lowered because it is the beginning of the harvests” (LCL 18.III.1647,

see also 2.II.1651, 24.IV.1662, 23.I.1579). This annual cycle meant that shortages in

local production could be expected beginning in August, and certainly by October (LCL

9.III.1562, 25.XI.1594) (see also Appendix G).

The total land area under wheat cultivation at any given time is also unknowable.

Moreover, as Bravo de Lagunas (1959 [1755]) explained, while it might be possible to

calculate the total land area in Lima’s valleys that could potentially be cultivated,

differences in land quality and water availability, as well as in quality of planting and

farming techniques made it impossible to say how much a given plot of land would yield.

Nevertheless, some production statistics may be cited. The earliest estimate of Lima

wheat production dates to 1605, and calculated that 31,400 fanegas of wheat would be harvested that year (Bravo de Lagunas 1959 [1755], 169).107 The next estimate, from

107 The fanega was a capacity/volume unit of measurement: 1 fanega was approximately 55.5 liters, so the estimate was for 1,742,700 liters (49,453.6 bushels). Viceroy Conde de Monterrey commissioned this report, which calculated that in 1605 the valleys and fields surrounding Lima would produce 31,400 fanegas of wheat, and that another 20,000 or so could be brought from the reasonably nearby valleys of Chancay, Huaura, Barranca, Santa and Cañete (Refer to Figure 4.2). However, the report mentioned that in 1605 local farmers were producing much less wheat than usual, because apparently 1604 prices had been so low that it was not to their advantage to plant again in 1605 (Bravo de Lagunas 1959 [1755], 168-170).

210 1624, stated that 30,000 fanegas could be harvested from Lima’s valleys (LCL

3.VII.1624); and the next, from around 1630, estimated that 80,000-100,000 fanegas

could be produced (Assadourian 1982, 148; see also Vergara Ormeño 1995, 10). All

calculations indicate that Lima consumed more wheat than it produced. In 1605

consumption was estimated at 12,000 fanegas/month, or 144,000 fanegas/year (Bravo de

Lagunas 1959 [1755], 169-170), in 1624 consumption was 15,000 f/m or 180,000 f/y

(LCL 3.VII.1624), and around 1630 it had risen to about 240,000 f/y (Assadourian 1982,

148). Lima’s population had grown rapidly since the city’s foundation. While the

population from the early years is also not well recorded, by 1600 there were 14,262

people living in the city, and by 1614 there were 25,185 (See Table 4.1). This works out

to roughly one liter of wheat/day available to each urban dweller around 1605, although

likely the Spanish population consumed a higher percentage of the total than the Indians

or Africans did, and likely there were also differences in consumption among the

Spanish. As consumption came to outpace local production, sources of wheat outside

Lima became necessary.

The Cabildo’s governance system was established concurrently with the increase

in wheat cultivation and consumption. It recognized its role in supplying the city with

abundant wheat and maize as “necessary” and “for the common good” (LCL 25.VI.1565

and see also Moore 1954, 75). By the mid 1550s the main Cabildo institutions for

regulating wheat and bread supply and markets were created (Figure 4.1). First and

foremost was the decision made in 1555 to build an Alhóndiga, or municipal granary in

the center of the city, near where mills were already located (LCL 10.V.1555; see also

The report mentioned that the consequences of the large deficit between supply and demand annual rising of wheat costs (after the wheat ran out, before the new harvests) and decreasing of the size of bread loaves.

211 LCL 31.V.1555, 7.VII.1555, and Chapter 2 Figure 2.7).108 At the Alhóndiga the Cabildo would set the price for wheat and other staples, and control all sales both large and small to bakers and direct consumers. Between 1557-1558 the granary was constructed and the first officials in charge of its administration were named. These were the two alcaldes

(mayors) or regidores (councilmen) selected annually as Deputies or Commissioners of the Alhóndiga (Diputado and Comisario titles were used fairly interchangeably), and one lower ranking city employee named as Alhóndiga Supervisor (Fiel de la Alhóndiga)

(LCL 4.VI.1557, 12.VI.1557, 20.IX.1557, 10.XII.1557, 2.I.1558, 10.I.1558, 19.X.1558, and see Appendix F).

The Deputies/Commissioners were in charge of administrating the granary, especially making sure it was supplied with sufficient funding. The day-to-day management of grain sales and purchases was the responsibility of the Alhóndiga

Supervisor (also sometimes called the Alhondiguero). It is unlikely that wheat was stored for long periods of time in the Alhóndiga, as Lima’s humidity prevented long-term storage: “in this city the conservation of wheat is impossible” (LCL 30.VIII.1635).

Therefore, the Alhóndiga should be considered as a short-term depot, where grain was bought and sold constantly. Apart from wheat it served as point of sale of maize, beans, and other foods (LCL 19.X.1558, 1.VIII.1561). Unfortunately, there are no real details about the varieties of wheat that passed through the Alhóndiga. However, since bread was the primary food made from wheat, it is likely that they were varieties of the bread wheat species Triticum aestivum. The few archaeological projects interested in the

108 The Alhóndiga was a Spanish institution, of Muslim origin (with an Arabic name), already in place prior to the colonial period. Defined as "Public house that holds the wheat of a city or large village, to secure its supply" (RAE). The Lima Alhóndiga was established very early on, Mexico's Alhóndiga was not built until 1580 (Lee 1947). Glick and Martínez (2006) use the word Almodí to refer to the municipal granary in medieval Valencia.

212 botanical remains of Spanish colonial agriculture in the Andes specify either Triticum sp.,

T. aestivum, or T. durum (hard wheat) (D’Altroy and Hastorf 1984; Capparelli 2005;

Jamieson 2008; Jamieson and Sayre 2010).

The Alhóndiga opened in October of 1558 (LCL 31.X.1558), but it experienced

some difficulties in its early years. For instance in 1561, complaints of disorder in the

granary cited the lack of grain because no one deposited it there; instead, it was being

sold openly in the main plaza by informal vendors (LCL 17.II.1561, 11.IV.1561). In

addition, at various times the funds needed for covering wheat purchases from producers

who did bring their grain to the Alhóndiga were lacking (LCL 6.X.1562, 20.VI.1566).

But in general the system worked, and the Alhóndiga served as a centralized point of

grain deposit and sale. Through its administration the Cabildo was able to keep the price

of bread stable and low throughout the 1560s, at 32-36 libras/peso (See Appendix G).

Sometimes this stability came at a financial loss to the city. In 1562 the Cabildo set the

price of wheat in the Alhóndiga to favor both producers and consumers: it sold wheat at a

lower price to bakers than it bought it from farmers (LCL 10.VII.1562). This illustrates

how the Cabildo viewed its role in the governance of wheat flows: its responsibility was

to keep the city supplied, especially in times of shortage or hardship.109

109 These features parallel observations of the functioning of the Almodí in medieval Valencia (Glick and Martínez 2006, 192-193): "...the adoption of active financial policies by the city council, designed to guarantee a steady flow of grain to the public grain depot (the Almodí) and to control cereal prices. These policies included fixed or assured price contracts, interest-free cash advances (prèstecs) and subsidies (ajudes) to merchants, mechanisms that benefited the more prominent grain merchants and required the signing of public instruments or contracts...The free sale of cereals in private depots called alfondècs or botigues (or even albercs, households) and mills was never completely banned, although such prohibitions are recorded regularly throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Nevertheless, the system promoted the centralization of grain trade in the Almodí, where it was sold (and taxed) at controlled prices to bakers and direct consumers. Municipal control of cereal trade in the city by means of its centralization in the Almodí was never fully achieved. The implementation of such a system (to support, in theory, the common welfare through controlling the price of staples, both wheat and bread) seems to have been spasmodic. In the even of subsistence crises, the city councilors ordered the closing of the small shops which were allowed to sell cereal under normal circumstances..."

213 The other institution, or governance practice, that was established during this early period related to how the Alhóndiga was supplied with grain. For general operation the Alhóndiga relied on spontaneous deposits (sales) of wheat by farmers (either large- scale hacendados or small-scale chacareros) from the fields surrounding the city, as well as from the occasional ships arriving to the port of Callao. However in times of shortage or special need the Cabildo assumed added responsibility. It sent representatives, usually regidores, to purchase grain in river valleys/irrigated areas to the north and south of Lima and to ship it back to the Alhóndiga. In 1561 it sent Ruiz Destrada to an unspecified location for sixty days (LCL 12.IX.1561), and in 1562 it sent Geronimo de Zurbano to

Cañete with 3000 pesos from city funds for the purchase of wheat (LCL 9.III.1562,

22.VI.1562, 31.VIII.1562) (Figure 4.2). These first trips, while few and only vaguely described in the LCL, were the precursors for a much more common practice of sending

Cabildo representatives to buy wheat that developed in the late 16th century (as described below). It is important to note that these shortages were rarely referred to as problems of wheat production (LCL 28.V.1549). More frequently they were explained as problems of wheat distribution. Shortages of wheat in the city, or in the alhóndiga, were blamed on informal traders and hoarders (e.g., LCL 7.I.1549, 28.V.1549, 11.IV.1561, 19.III.1565), as well as export to Panama (e.g., LCL 16.VIII.1549 31.III.1549). (Discussion of shortages is continued below in descriptions of Phases 2-4).

Overall, from the introduction of wheat through the initial establishment of the

Cabildo’s system for maintaining its steady supply, Cabildo strategies relied on local production, with minimal import from other regions and even some export to Panama.

During this period the major infrastructure for grain flow was constructed (e.g.,

214 gristmills, the Alhóndiga), and the Cabildo established its authority as the entity in charge

of the governance of this flow. The Cabildo’s strategies for governing wheat flow

focused on these technologies and structures; these were the moments at which

governance of flows occurred.

Phase 2: The Cabildo Supplies the City: Trips to Purchase Wheat and the Alhóndiga (1570-1622)

In the late 16th and early 17th centuries, the Cabildo members often discussed

wheat shortages. It seems that the Alhóndiga, the single institution where grain was

legally stored and sold, was not able to keep up with the urban demand for grain, and

especially the demand for wheat.110 Between 1575-1580, various complaints were presented to the Cabildo about the lack of wheat in the Alhóndiga, its poor organization and management, and the fact that farmers and other wheat owners did not want to bring their product to sell there (LCL 1.VI.1575, 4.V.1576, 3.X.1578, 27.V.1580, 29.VII.1580).

These problems, especially the last one, culminated in the issuance of two municipal

ordinances. The first required that all wheat entering the port of Callao be deposited in

the Alhóndiga (LCL 7.VII.1581). The second required that all wheat harvested in Lima’s

valleys be deposited there (LCL 2.VII.1582). Additionally, during the latter part of the

16th century (1571-1590), the LCL record about twenty public prohibitions of the export

of grain to Panama (e.g., LCL 19.I1571, 7.V.1575, 30.VI.1580). Less commonly, they

reference that informal, small-scale wheat sales continued to occur outside of the official

Alhóndiga trade (LCL 19.V.1581). Together, these four issues –– lack of wheat in the

Alhóndiga, ordinances requiring farmers and merchants to bring their wheat to the

110 Hunger was rarely mentioned (e.g., LCL 6.XI.1607).

215 Alhóndiga, prohibitions of exports, and informal exchange –– point to an increasingly uncontrolled situation in which the Cabildo’s grain supply system could not meet the city’s demand (Figure 4.3).

The Cabildo tried to take responsibility for these shortages by sending representatives to buy wheat at various locations in the greater Lima region and ship it back to the city by sea. Mostly these trips were to the valleys north of the city (e.g.,

Chancay, Huaura and Barranca), or to the fields in Lima’s irrigated valleys. This strategy, introduced in the 1560s, was greatly expanded after 1570. Between 1575-1586 there were fourteen trips, with most years having at least one, and with most beginning between the months of June and August. (See Figure 4.4 and Appendix E). In 1587 this system grew still further. In this year alone there were four separate trips, with destinations including places farther afield than usual: to the north Huarmey, Santa, and

Trujillo; to the south Cañete; and for the first time a highland source, Jauja (Figure 4.5).

In October of 1587, after these trips were completed, the Cabildo discussed the overarching issue, and concluded that given the ever-increasing population of Lima, trips to bring wheat, maize, and other supplies were to become more and more common in the future (LCL 26.X.1587). Lastly, these wheat-buying trips established an important dichotomy between the wheat from Lima’s irrigated valleys, which could be transported to the city via carts and pack animals, and the wheat shipped by sea from neighboring river valleys to Callao.

Even with increasing Cabildo attention to the supply of grain, the Alhóndiga as an institution continued to suffer, and during the first two decades of the 17th century it died out altogether. In 1606 the Cabildo again described the granary as empty, because no one

216 was bringing wheat there anymore, and for the first time the idea of renting the property

for another use was suggested (LCL 31.III.1606). This first mention was followed by a series of discussions about whether to rent or sell the house, or whether to revitalize the granary (LCL 24.IV.1610, 7.V.1610, 25.V.1610, 12.IV.1611, 1.VII.1613, 11.IV.1614).

Hedging its bets, the Cabildo decided to rent, and in 1622 it stopped naming Alhóndiga commissioners, although until 1668 it reserved the right to do so should the Alhóndiga be reinstated. While it can be argued that the Alhóndiga decline was due to the rise of a merchant class controlling wheat trade (see below), one of the most overlooked reasons for the weakening of this institution relates to its physical geographic location. Given the growing reliance on wheat shipped to the city from ever further locations, the center of wheat flow had shifted from Lima’s city center to the port of Callao. The Cabildo did not own municipal storehouses there, and renting privately owned storage was costly (LCL

26.X.1587). In general, by the end of this second phase it had become necessary for the

Cabildo to adjust its supply system, mainly by shifting its geographic focus to the port.

Regidor trips to buy wheat also experienced a similar shift and decline in the early

17th century. For example, the many trips of 1610 –– to all of Lima’s irrigated valleys

and to all of the northern river valleys up to Pativilca, involving ten different Cabildo

representatives –– were no longer to buy wheat and ship it back (for details see Appendix

E). Rather, Cabildo representatives were sent to inspect the amount of wheat available

and its quality (“Cala y Cato”) and to enforce the official wheat price set by the Cabildo

(LCL 3.VII.1610, 24.IX.1610, 12.XI.1610). Instead of buying the wheat outright, the representatives were to encourage the owners/farmers to ship their grain to Lima at their own expense (LCL 29.X.1610). In part, this strategy was designed to identify and

217 prohibit wheat hoarders waiting for higher prices (LCL 29.X.1610).111 However, it was

also owing to the reality that the Cabildo had no money of its own to buy the wheat. This

was also the period of construction of drinking water pipelines and levees, which drained

city funds (see Chapter 3). In 1618, when there were 6000 fanegas of wheat available in

Trujillo, the Cabildo declared that it could not purchase the wheat for itself, and granted

permission to any private individual who wanted to go to Trujillo and ship the wheat

back to Lima (LCL 25.V.1618).112 In 1621, small-scale merchants were said to be bringing wheat from the northern valleys (LCL 18.VIII.1621). Analysis of the Cabildo- sponsored wheat-buying trips over the period 1587-1622 shows both a broadening of the geographic extent of wheat catchment, and a weakening of the Cabildo’s control over wheat flow.

As the Cabildo’s direct control over wheat supply declined, private merchants –– ranging from small-scale middlemen (called regatones) to well-organized shipping endeavors –– took over this important activity. While extra-colonial import of wheat into

Lima remained minimal (Assadourian 1982, 58; Schlüpmann 2006), towards the end of the 16th century there were some indications that it was becoming an area of interest for merchants. In 1594, the Cabildo first mentioned a ship arriving from Chile with wheat

(LCL 11.XI.1594), and shortly thereafter, it discussed Chile as a potential source for alleviating the shortages annually experienced in Lima between October and the end of the year (LCL 25.XI.1594).113 Chilean documents show that in 1596 high wheat prices in

111 During other years of apparent extreme shortage, the Cabildo instead removed price controls, to encourage more people to bring wheat to the city (e.g., LCL 22.VII.1590, 10.XI.1607). 112 The Cabildo also lacked funds to buy 3000 fanegas of flour in Santa in 1590, and had to ask the Viceroy for assistance (LCL 22.VII.1590). 113 Regidor Andres Sanchez introduced the idea that approximately 3000 fanegas of wheat could be brought from Chile, specifically the "league before Santiago," which could be divided between the bakers at the price set by the Cabildo (LCL 25.XI.1594). One league (legua) was approximately equal to 3.5 miles.

218 Lima prompted merchants to ship there, and that around this time a Chilean company formed with the idea of sending 3000-4000 fanegas of wheat and maize to Lima annually

(Assadourian 1982, 58). Finally, given the rise in private shipping, the Cabildo began to send regidores to Callao. These representatives were to inspect and register the wheat that arrived by ship in order to determine where it was sold, at what prices, and how it was brought to the city, as well as to prevent those buying wheat in the port from reselling it at higher prices (LCL 22.V.1582, 9.VII.1610, 11.VIII.1621). The hope was that by controlling the distribution of wheat imports, the Cabildo could prevent the damaging actions of regatones who were blamed for causing wheat prices to rise (LCL

19.V.1581, 25.XI.1594, 4.II.1611, 18.VIII.1621).

Overall, as Lima’s population grew by at least 10,000 people during this second phase of Cabildo wheat governance (1570-1622), there were notable shifts in governance strategies. Urban consumption of wheat still focused mainly on local and regional production; however, “regional” came to mean an ever broadening geographic zone comprising Lima and its neighboring river valleys, especially to the north. There was also repeated emphasis on the prohibition of exports and a growing reliance on imports from ever more distant locations. Yet as the geographic catchment area of wheat supply grew, the Cabildo’s direct control of the supply and distribution process weakened. The municipal granary became obsolete and was shut down, and the Cabildo strategy shifted from buying wheat and shipping it to the city directly, to inspecting wheat, supervising its distribution, and attempting to enforce price controls. The Cabildo’s strategies for governing wheat flows shifted from focusing on actual physical points of technology or

219 infrastructure (e.g., granaries) to concentrating on more conceptual aspects (e.g., price

control).

Phase 3: Governance via Price Control: The geography of grain prices, and mediation between farmers, bakers, and merchants (1623-1687)

After the system the Cabildo had previously used to supply the city with grain

was phased out, the city council resorted to new methods for managing flows of wheat.

Specifically, the Cabildo focused on setting official wheat and bread prices, and using

price control to mediate between producers (farmers), merchants, bakers, and consumers

(Figure 4.6). Although technically the Cabildo had set the official prices since the

foundation of the city, during the early 17th century this practice became more

formalized and more frequently mentioned in the LCL. During the period in question –– after the Alhóndiga closed and before the wheat crisis of the late 17th century (1623-

1687) –– normal wheat prices ranged from 3-5 pesos/fanega (p/f), with prices of 6 p/f or

more indicating wheat shortages (Figure 4.7).114 It is important to note that during these

years none of the wheat shortages and/or periods of raised prices were attributed to

“natural” causes such as poor harvests: “the current lack...does not come from barrenness

of the crops nor from weather misfortune” (LCL 21.VI.1624). Rather, hoarding, middlemen, and shipping interruptions were almost universally blamed for the problem

(e.g., LCL 21.VI.1624, 14.III.1647, 17.X.1651, 22.III.1669, 27.III.1669, 3.IX.1680).115

However interesting it may be to analyze the ups and downs of the official wheat

price set by the Cabildo, it is important to note that this single official price masked a

114 Bravo de Lagunas (1959 [1755], 161) identified a "regular and moderate price" as 3.5p/f 115 On one occasion an attack by pirates on the port of Callao was held responsible for interrupting shipping (LCL 21.VI.1624).

220 much greater variation in the wheat prices actually used. This underlying variation depended on the basic geography of Lima’s wheat supply. There were almost always at least two different prices for wheat being used simultaneously: that of wheat in Lima’s irrigated valleys and that in the port. During the period in question, the price at which farmers sold their wheat in Lima’s irrigated valleys was usually higher than that at which it was sold in the port (it was sometimes the same, but never lower). This difference was typically attributed to the higher quality of the valley wheat, which was “more esteemed and better and cleaner and higher yielding for the baker...” (LCL 30.VIII.1635). The official price set by the Cabildo usually represented a compromise between the two, a little lower than valley prices and a little higher than port prices. In 1635 the Cabildo even went as far as to set two official prices: 5p/f in the port and 5.5p/f in the valleys.

The logic of this was to protect the local producers while continuing to encourage sale of grain in both locations. Hoarding, or simply holding onto wheat until prices were more favorable due to the seasonality of wheat availability (e.g., rising after July/August and falling after harvests March/April), was a common practice in both port and valleys (LCL

5.IX.1650, 2.III.1651, 22.III.1669, 27.III.1669, 22.II.1675, 3.IX.1680). Wheat was also held at ports outside the city, like Chincha and Cañete, and only shipped when prices rose

(LCL 14.III.1647).

The Cabildo did not only have to negotiate with valley farmers and port merchants. It also set wheat prices thinking about bakers and the price of bread. The basic mechanism for this was a set scale, called the “Cómputo de Pan,” which dictated how bread prices were to vary depending on wheat prices. This was calculated by taking a fanega sack of wheat, milling it, making as much bread as possible from the product,

221 adding up all other labor and raw material costs, and thus figuring out how much bread could be made at what cost. Based on the bakers’ costs, the Cabildo determined how much they would be allowed to charge for bread, given a normal range of wheat prices

(LCL v.16 Appendix). For example, if wheat were set at 4 p/f, bread would be sold for

28 onzas/real.116 There were four relevant computos issued during the 17th century:

1619, 1653/58, 1668, and 1693 (LCL 7.II.1653, 27.III.1658, 3.IV.1667, 11.III.1682,

6.II.1693, 24.I.1699). The first cómputo was made in 1619 (Lee and Bromley 1935-1964

[1534-1637]: v.16 Appendix)117 (Table 4.2). The Cabildo agreed to make the second one in 1651, and completed it in 1653 (LCL 16.III.1651, 2.IX.1651, 25.I.1653, 7.II.1653,

3.III.1653). This 1653 cómputo was revised in 1658 after a petition by the baker’s guild: the price of bread was raised slightly (one onza/real was reduced across the entire scale)

(LCL 18.II.1658, 20.II.1658, 1.III.1658, 27.III.1658). The 1668 cómputo was also made in response to a petition by the bakers (LCL 3.IV.1667, 5.III.1668). Finally, the 1693 cómputo was made to deal with rising prices as a result of the late 17th century wheat crisis (described in the next section). Changing the cómputo was a difficult undertaking that required consultation with the Viceroy. The Cabildo tried to avoid re-doing its previous work, and several baker petitions for new cómputos were rejected or postponed

(LCL 22.VIII.1625, 2.V.1636, 31.III.1672).

The existence of the cómputo, and the kind of set scale it established, helps to explain some of the seemingly illogical petitions made by bakers towards the end of the

17th century. The bakers petitioned at least five times for the official price of wheat to be raised (LCL 9.X.1668, 22.II.1675, 13.IX.1675, 1.II.1678, 22.IV.1678, 1.X.1681,

116 Refer to note #106 on bread pricing. 117 This cómputo is not actually mentioned in the LCL, except in the Appendix to v.16.

222 5.X.1685, 6.X.1685, 9.X.1685, 23.X.1685). Their reasoning was that they had purchased wheat at a previously lower price, had stored it, and were thus looking for the official price per fanega of flour to rise so that they could sell fewer onzas/real. While the

Cabildo usually denied their demands (e.g., rejected 1668, raised only
peso 1675, rejected 1675, accepted 1685), it did recognize the risk that if the price of wheat was set too low, the bakers would stop making bread altogether (LCL 3.IX.1680).

The Cabildo also had to negotiate between the interests of bakers and farmers.

For example, in 1669 the bakers argued that because farmers were hoarding wheat waiting for prices to go up there was no flour available for them to use for bread (LCL

27.III.1669). In general the Cabildo’s wheat governance system was least favorable to farmers, especially owners of the smaller chacáras. Since it sought to keep wheat and bread prices low in the city, it often had to coerce farmers into selling their wheat in Lima at all, instead of exporting it to Panama (Keith 1976). Sometimes during regidor trips to buy wheat, and later to inspect wheat, the regidores forcibly encouraged farmers to thresh and winnow their grain, and transport it to the city (e.g., LCL 24.VII.1635, 5.IX.1650,

2.III.1651, 28.III.1669, 29.III.1669). However, farmers continued to try to hoard their wheat, waiting to sell it only when prices rose. This in turn favored richer farmers, who were more able to hold onto their wheat, over poorer ones (LCL 5.IX.1650). In general, smaller-scale wheat farming in the Lima area was considered a risky endeavor (Keith

1976).

Finally, while there were only a handful of Cabildo-sponsored wheat purchasing trips during this third phase (1623-1685), the Cabildo did continue to send regidores and other representatives to the port of Callao, Lima’s irrigated valleys, and other more

223 distant locations to inspect wheat stores and supervise their sale and distribution (Figures

4.6 and 4.8). This system, especially when dealing with ships with wheat in Callao, had begun before the Alhóndiga had officially closed, and was called the reparto

(distribution). The basic idea was that the regidores were to determine how much of the available wheat could be sold to each baker, to make sure the wheat was sold, and to make sure that no individual acquired more than he could use. Important repartos occurred in 1635, 1642, 1651, 1661, and 1692 (LCL 24.VII.1635, 6.X.1642, 30.IX.1651,

30.XII.1651, 12.I.1652, 8.VIII.1661, 22.XII.1692). The Cabildo’s representatives also checked the weights and measures being used for wheat sales (e.g., LCL 12.IX.1651,

26.XII.1670). Lastly, the Cabildo worked to control the fees charged by the mule drivers who transported the wheat from the port to the city, a distance of thirteen kilometers. In

1660, for instance, the price for one trip of one mule loaded with wheat was four reales

(LCL 24.XI.1660).

Overall, during the majority of the 17th century, wheat supply was steady and secure. Local and regional production were still vital, but growing demand led to more trade, and more of the city’s wheat supply came to be handled by various types of traders and merchants. The Cabildo now relied on price control to negotiate the flow of wheat and bread between producers, traders, and consumers; and, in general, wheat prices remained stable during this period. Finally, the differentiation between irrigated valley wheat and imported wheat deepened, and became one of the major challenges to the

Cabildo’s wheat governance strategies. This changing spatial composition of wheat flows was intricately tied to changing governance strategies for controlling the supply of

224 wheat; even as changing wheat flows prompted changes in governance, governance

strategies also redirected flows and molded their spatiality.

Phase 4: The Wheat Crisis of the Late 17th Century in the Libros de Cabildos (1687- 1705)

At the end of the 17th century Lima experienced two destructive events. The first

event was a strong earthquake that leveled many important city buildings, including the

Cathedral (20 October 1687). This earthquake was estimated to have had a magnitude of

8.0-8.4 (Richter scale) and it caused a tsunami and approximately 5,000 deaths (USC

Tsunami Research Center n.d.). The second event, which lasted from 1692-1699, was a

failure of wheat production on a scale not previously experienced, which came to be

known as the “great sterility” (“gran esterilidad”). While agronomists later deduced that

a wheat rust caused this crop failure (Pulgar Vidal 1946), at the time the plague does not

appear to have been understood, and various rationales were given.118 The French visitor

Amadée Frezier, who wrote a description of Lima in 1713, was the first to link the earthquake to the crop failure, but this connection was most strongly emphasized a half- century later by Bravo de Lagunas, in his “Voto Consultivo:”

Before the earthquake of the year of 1687...the harvests of wheat and barley were plentiful...and there was no need for it to be brought in from outside...but after, the land became so indisposed that the wheat seeds planted in it rotted, which is attributed to the abundance of sulfuric vapors that were exhaled, and the nitreous particles that were left scattered over them. This caused the landowners...to plant Alfalfa, Sugarcane and other things...(Bravo de Lagunas 1959 [1755], 141).

About forty years after the earthquake it was found that wheat could be grown again, but

the other crops had already taken precedence (Bravo de Lagunas 1959 [1755], 141). In

118 These include problems with climate/weather (e.g., garúas at the wrong time-See Also Chapter 3), plagues of various kinds (e.g., "la palomilla," "the worm," "black spiders"), and more spiritual causes (e.g., intemperance, will of God) (See Pérez-Maillaína 2000,77-78, and for a discussion of the role of farmers and millers working on Sundays see Chapter 2 or AAL Legajo 34 Expediente 29 Año 1697 f.4).

225 accounts since, the earthquake came to be blamed as the primary cause of the sterility

(Flores Galindo 1984, 22).

Peruvian historian Alberto Flores Galindo (1984, 22-29) most famously called

into question the link between the earthquake and the failed harvests by asking the simple

question: If earthquakes can affect agricultural production in such a way, why have the

many other quakes experienced in Lima and along the Peruvian coast not had similar

results? He drew instead on political and economic reasoning to explain why the wheat

crisis was so profound. Specifically, he argued that merchants from Lima and Callao

were far better organized than the hacendados and other farmers from the irrigated

valleys. The merchants, who were also the ship owners, controlled when and how much

wheat arrived to the port, and thus could manipulate pricing and suffocate farmers. These

merchants promoted the Chilean wheat as being of better quality than the local wheat,

and formed contracts with city bakers. Subsequently, land in Lima’s irrigated valleys

that previously had been devoted to wheat cultivation came to be used for sugarcane and

alfalfa production, causing further declines in local grain yields.119 Overall, Flores

Galindo used explanations based on commerce, circulation, and the control of flows of

commodities to explain the crisis, and he argued that attributing the wheat crisis to

seismic events allowed for Peru’s newfound dependence on importations from Chile to

seem blameless.

However, Flores Galindo based his arguments mainly on late 18th century

documents, and used few primary sources from the period in question. Pérez-Maillaína

119 In this case, sugarcane was the necessary counterpart to wheat; it filled the ships going back to Chile. Alfalfa, was used to feed the mules that transported wheat and other imported goods from the port to the city. Wheat also required more labor costs than sugar or alfalfa, and so became less attractive to increasingly impoverished hacendados (wheat usually used Indian labor, sugar usually used African slaves) (Flores Galindo 1984).

226 (2000), using Flores Galindo’s proposal, examined the earthquake/wheat crisis link using previously unexplored 17th century documents on colonial taxation held in Spanish archives. This data clearly supported the de-linking of the two events. Strongest among the documents was a petition made by hacendados in Lima’s irrigated valleys to the crown in 1699, which requested a reprieve from various taxes (alcabala, sisa, censos) given the two separate calamities that Lima had recently suffered. Pérez-Maillaína

(2000) also cites evidence that both the viceroy and the archbishop recognized these two events as distinct.

The Cabildo documents corroborate this separation of the earthquake and the wheat crisis as two distinct events, and add further chronological detail to the earthquake- crisis-recovery timeline. Even more importantly, LCL analysis demonstrates how the

Cabildo dealt with the crisis, how its wheat governance practices were changed by it, and how the crisis brought into focus the competing interests of the different sectors of Lima society. While both Flores Galindo and Pérez-Maillaína were primarily concerned with why the earthquake narrative became so prominent, here my analysis focuses instead on how ecological events and environmental change interacted with political, economic, and social processes to influence transformations in wheat flows and their governance. These transformations especially had to do with changes in wheat varieties and origins, and the subsequent disruptions that arose in the Cabildo’s governance system. By continuing to focus on the twin themes of space and scale, in the following I shed new light on the wheat crisis story.

As described above, since the mid 17th century the Cabildo had relied on a system of price control to direct flows of wheat and mediate between producers,

227 suppliers, and consumers. Prices thus became a fairly good index of wheat scarcity or abundance, regardless of the cause. In the several years leading up to the October 1687 earthquake, wheat prices were consistently listed at a reasonable 3-4.5 p/f of wheat

(Figure 4.9). In the aftermath of the earthquake, wheat prices rose slightly, but not to a concerning degree. While unfortunately the Cabildo data do not include any prices from late 1687, 1688 prices remained stable at around 5 p/f. The Cabildo did concern itself with maintaining the supply of wheat after the earthquake. In its second meeting after the event it ordered a representative to inspect bakers’ wheat stores and to figure out who had what grain and where it was being held (LCL 18.XI.1687).120 From 1688-1691 prices continued to be fairly steady, between 3-5 p/f, and no mention of problems with harvests were made. In fact, in 1691 the Cabildo instead discussed the overabundance of wheat, and consequent lowering of prices (LCL 7.IX.1691).

It was in 1692 that problems with the wheat harvest were mentioned for the first time in the Cabildo. This coincides exactly with the data presented by Pérez-Maillaína

(2000), and provides the Lima counterpart to the Spanish archival sources he consulted.

In August of that year bad harvests were discussed (wheat at 5.5 p/f); in October wheat scarcity and disorder amongst bakers was reported (wheat at 7 p/f); and, in November the

Cabildo sent representatives to inspect all the bakeries, granaries, and flour stores in the city to find out what grain was available given “the scarcity that has been recognized this year, and what is feared for the coming [year]” (LCL 8.VIII.1692, 30.X.1692,

120 This was not the first time that the Cabildo had taken action directly after an earthquake to ensure supply: during the week after the earthquake of July 9, 1586, the Cabildo, working in conjunction with the Viceroy, was able to make sure that the Alhóndiga was supplied and that wheat prices were kept under control (LCL 14.VII.1586). The two colonial authorities worked together to force farmers in Lima's valleys to send their wheat to the Alhóndiga, and to set a price that was fair for both farmers and bakers (LCL 14.VII.1586).

228 16.XI.1692). In late November slight relief was found when a ship arrived from Cañete

with 1,714 fanegas of wheat. The Cabildo closely supervised the distribution of this

grain among the bakers (LCL 22.XI.1692). But, by 1693 the situation had worsened significantly, and the Cabildo discussed raising the official wheat price to as high as 20 p/f (LCL 6.II.1693). By 1695 the Cabildo referenced the letters that were being sent to

Spain asking for reprieve from the alcabala and sisa taxes--presumably the same cited in

Pérez-Maillaína (2000) –– stating that wheat had reached prices as high as 30 p/f, and that the crisis was a “worse calamity than that of the earthquake of eighty-seven” (LCL

19.VIII.1695). The Cabildo did not discuss the issue again until 1699, when it described

the improved Lima fields and the abundance of wheat in Callao that had arrived from

Chile and other provinces. During the last years of the 17th century and beginning of the

18th, the official price remained variable, and tended to be high, between 5-10 p/f (See

Figure 4.9 and Appendix G).

The wheat rust (or other infestation) that destroyed Lima’s crop also affected the

coastal valleys near to Lima, from Cañete and Chincha in the south to Chancay, Huaura

and Barranca in the north (LCL 6.II.1693). The city thus came to depend on wheat

brought from other regions (Figure 4.10). At first wheat was brought from the highlands

(“trigo de sierra”) (LCL 6.II.1693). Chile was the secondary source, although the one

that came to dominate. In 1692 only nine ships embarked from Chilean ports headed to

Lima, in 1695 there were seventeen, and by 1698 this number had risen to thirty-four

(Schlüpmann 2006, 33). The Cabildo also mentions that wheat from Chile, including the

highest quality “blanquillo” wheat (white, bread-quality wheat), was not available in the city in 1693 but surged by 1699 (LCL 24.I.1699). In 1699, when local wheat production

229 was improving, Chilean blanquillo wheat was the most expensive and attractive product

and sierra wheat was the least.121 At this time, the blanquillo price was used as the city’s

official wheat price for the cómputo (9 p/f). This inadvertently favored bakers who

would mix flour made from lower quality sierra wheat with the blanquillo (LCL 9.I.1699,

29.VII.1699 see also LCL 6.II.1693, 29.III.1703).

The bread cómputo was also affected by the crisis. A new cómputo was made in

1693 in response to rising wheat prices as well as bakers who were using mixtures of

wheat varieties and classes of flour in their bread (LCL 6.II.1693). Bakers petitioned for

yet another revision to the scale in 1699, citing the many new varieties of wheat and the

fact that the old cómputo could not adequately represent this diversity (“diversidad de

trigos”) (LCL 24.I.1699). The Cabildo took their request seriously, although eventually it

decided not to make a new calculation (LCL 24.I.1699, 9.III.1699, 29.VII.1699). It cited

the fact that the available quantities and prices of the different wheat varieties were so

variable from day to day that “it would be necessary to do a new cómputo everyday” and

that even wheat from each of Lima’s valleys was “of different qualities” (LCL

29.VII.1699). Excessive diversity in wheat quality and pricing was antagonistic to the

cómputo system, an issue the Cabildo tried to suppress. The next cómputo was not made

until 1717. This one, commissioned in 1716, was in response to yet another petition by

the bakers to incorporate the different types of wheat being sold at different prices, and

121 While it is possible that blanquillo wheat was also grown in Lima's valleys, this specific variety was never mentioned in the LCL prior to the discussion of wheat imports from Chile in 1699 (LCL 24.I.1699). Interestingly, during this same period, blanquillo wheat was subject to controversy in New Spain (Puebla region, Mexico): it seems in 1677 there was a general prohibition on growing blanquillo wheat, which was only lifted in 1692 (apparently due to competition among growers, one group of farmers had convinced the courts that this wheat was of poor quality and harmful to health, an argument that was later overturned) (Feijoo 1965; Suárez Argüello 1985; Codding 1995)

230 was mainly due to the influx of Chilean wheats (Bravo de Lagunas 1959 [1755], 150-151,

160-161) (Table 4.3).

While the Cabildo never explained causes of the wheat crisis of the late 17th century, its records do reveal how local crop failure led to important transformations in

Lima’s wheat supply system, especially in where it was from and how it arrived to the city. (Refer to Figure 4.10). As highland and Chilean fields became the primary sources of Lima’s wheat, the diversity of wheat varieties and qualities available in the city expanded greatly. The Cabildo’s system of price control and the bread cómputo proved too cumbersome for this new diversity. Port merchants were much better equipped to deal with fluidity in pricing. Bakers, bound by the cómputo, were not able to adjust their bread prices to deal with the range of wheat prices, and instead resorted to mixing flours.

Meanwhile, hacendados and other farmers in Lima’s irrigated valleys shifted their production to sugarcane for export, and alfalfa for local animal feed. Throughout, the

Cabildo continued to support its price control system and to downplay wheat diversity for the sake of simplified governance. However, wheat flows began to elude municipal governance, and instead came to be controlled by a rising merchant class.

Discussion: Space and Scale in Lima’s Wheat Flows and Implications for Studies of Urban Environmental Resource Flows and the Columbian Exchange

Analysis of the direction and scale of wheat flows shows important changes in the grain governance strategies of the Lima Cabildo during different stages of the early-mid colonial period. From the foundation of Lima in 1535, the Cabildo worked to ensure a steady, affordable flow of grain (maize and wheat) into the city. With the ever-increasing urban population, the area from which this grain was harvested expanded. Since the

231 1540s wheat had been grown in the irrigated “valleys” surrounding the city, but rather early on --by 1575 –– Limeños also consumed wheat from regional coastal river valleys.

Eventually this included all of the irrigated spaces between Trujillo and Pisco (see

Figures 4.4 and 4.5). By the close of the 17th century deliveries from highland sources increased, and Lima came to rely on imports from Chile. As the hinterland from which wheat flowed into the city expanded spatially, the Cabildo lost its direct control over the flow. Initially the Cabildo sought to maintain a municipal granary and relied on its regidores to make wheat purchases for the city, but over time it ceded these responsibilities to private merchants and privately owned storehouses. The Cabildo resorted to controlling the price of wheat as its primary method for ensuring supply and for mediating between the increasingly divergent interests of farmers, bakers, merchants, and city residents.

These broader changes in the spatiality of wheat flows influenced more local- scale shifts in institutions and practices. As alluded to above, the origin of the grain influenced how it was delivered to the city, which in turn had a significant impact on the institutions used to store and distribute grain. During the earlier years (Phases 1 and 2), when the irrigated valleys around the city were the main source of wheat, grain was transported overland by mules and other pack animals directly to the Alhóndiga located in the center of the city. However, as ships arriving to the port of Callao from neighboring river valleys and farther off locations began to deliver more of the city’s wheat, storehouses in the port replaced the Alhóndiga and eventually forced its closure.

In addition, the mule drivers and cartmen working the Callao-Lima route acquired their own status, and came to be regulated by the Cabildo.

232 While in a sense Lima represents a classic case of a city drawing on an ever- expanding hinterland to supply its increasing population, such a model does not explain the more complicated mixture of ecological, social, political, and economic forces that I have elucidated here. This multi-factor perspective must be applied to fully understand

Lima’s shift from a reliance on local production and even exporting grain, to a dependence on imports from increasingly distant locations, eventually including extra- colonial or imperial-scale sources. Such an analysis demonstrates that the actual locations of production and spatial patterns of supply were closely related with expanding merchant control of wheat, shift of the center of wheat flow from Lima to Callao, unexpected ecological events (the significant problem caused by wheat rust), and changing crop production in Lima’s irrigated valleys.

Focusing on how wheat flows changed over time –– both spatial components and governance practices –– also reveals the competing interests of different sectors of colonial society. These sectors included the colonial administration (Cabildo, Viceroy), farmers (hacendados and chacareros), merchants (ship owners and small middlemen), bakers, and city residents (bread consumers). (Refer to Figure 1.4). First and foremost was the rivalry between administrative branches of colonial government. The Cabildo was the branch that dealt with wheat governance on a daily basis, but it often required the permission of the Viceroy, or was forced to act under viceregal orders, for important decisions. This was usually the case when new bread cómputos were created, or when regidores were sent to purchase wheat during times of scarcity. Second, within the city, the Cabildo’s governance strategies –– especially its attempts at price control –– favored some sectors over others. For example, local wheat was typically protected over

233 imported wheat, small-scale middlemen were universally reviled, and the baker’s guild

grew in power (even though the Cabildo was loath to give in to its demands). The

Cabildo was certainly not free of internal corruption (Moore 1954, 278-282). Although

referenced at only two instances in the LCL, the Cabildo members were sometimes

wheat-growing hacendados themselves, or were closely related to this class (LCL

9.XII.1621, 5.X.1656, 11.VII.1657, see also Moore 1954:169, 278-279).122 The

Cabildo’s conflicting protection and coercion of local farmers and its loyalty to the cumbersome price control method that was so contrary to the rise of the merchant class and commodity trade should be understood with this consideration (Moore 1954, 176-

177, 279).

The joint spatial and political features of Lima’s wheat flows are useful for continuing discussions of environmental resource flows, urban metabolism, and urban political ecology more generally. In this case it is possible to trace the development and change over time of an entirely new system of urban flows based on the foundation of a new city and the production and consumption of a newly introduced crop. Analysis of this system over a period of more than 150 years shows how municipal governance of wheat flows adjusted and adapted to shifting conditions. Specifically, it demonstrates the importance of features like varying demand (e.g., population growth), new economic relations (e.g., development of trade relations), exertion of political pressure (e.g.,

122 In 1621 this issue was referred to only obliquely, in an accusation that councilmen were interested in raising wheat prices, since they were selling the crop themselves (LCL 9.XII.1621). In 1656 the relationship between the Cabildo's price-setting and the Regidores with wheat growing in their fields was again questioned, although the Cabildo later asserted that its members were not prohibited from owning agricultural lands (LCL 5.X.1656, 11.VII.1657). The list of fields surveyed by the Viceroy in 1605 and copied in Bravo de Lagunas (1959 [1755], 168-169) includes several familiar surnames (e.g., Nuñez Campoverde, Ampuero, Cordova, Carabajal, Davalos de Ribera, Ruiz de Navamuel, Silva, etc.).

234 favoring of some wheat sources over others), unanticipated or uncontrollable ecological events (e.g., wheat rust infestation), and a general increase in complexity of urban society. Finally, it demonstrates the utility of analyzing the governance of flows at key points along these flows where regulation actually occurs, as moments of governance

(Figures 4.1, 4.3, 4.6, 4.10). In the four phases we see moments of governance are associated with specific technology, infrastructure or the manipulation of knowledge/information (e.g., shipping, storage, price control based on knowledge of the quality of wheat and where it was available).

A second observation is that wheat flows were only one among many interconnected environmental resource flows whose convergence exerted a powerful influence on Lima’s urban space. Wheat flow through Lima was directly related to transportation systems: especially flows of mules and other pack animals into and out of the city, flows of alfalfa (food for pack animals), and flows of ships into and out of the port (e.g., from Chile carrying wheat with the return voyage carrying sugarcane- see

Flores Galindo 1984). Wheat flow was also closely tied to water flows: rivers and canals were used to power the urban gristmills (see Chapter 2), and irrigation canals were vital to wheat cultivation (see Chapter 3). By tracing a single commodity it is thus possible to identify many interconnecting flows. Together these flows, and the networks they create, work to shape and define urban spaces (Gandy 2004; Swyngedouw 2006).

My “governance of flows” approach to the introduction of wheat in colonial Peru suggests that studies of the Columbian Exchange that look only at the introduction of a plant or animal miss a good part of the story. To obtain a full picture, it is necessary to consider the plant or animal in its broader context, including the political, economic,

235 social, and cultural aspects of its introduction, production, processing, and use. Analysis of flows and their governance provides one way of conceptualizing the relationships between these diverse components of crop/animal introduction. Here, I have used wheat flow analysis to show how production, trade, and consumption of food products influenced governance practices, linked varied members of colonial society, and led to differentiation and competition among these social sectors. Moreover, I argue that to understand the full impact of the many biological/environmental transformations of the

Colonial period it is necessary to consider an extended time frame. My study has examined the introduction, establishment, and transformation of one crop in one location, over a period of more than 150 years. This longer-term perspective, and especially the focus on the adaptation and change of wheat governance practices over time, shows a more gradual process of socio-ecological transition than the quick snapshot events that are typically referenced in the study of wheat in Lima (its introduction and crisis).

Finally, a few brief observations on historical sources and the research project suggested above are necessary. As Crosby (1972) recognized, especially in his work on syphilis, finding detailed archival sources for the movements of plants, animals, and diseases of over 400 years ago is not an easy feat. The LCL provide an ideal source for looking at wheat over time in Lima, but with the possible exception of European livestock, they contain minimal information on other themes relevant to Columbian

Exchange studies. As Moore (1966, 67-68) puts it, the Cabildo was most interested in the

“bakers, butchers and candlestick makers,” and it paid little attention to Indian maize farming, and none at all to the cultivation of less economically important native or

236 European crops. Likewise, such long-term and detailed Cabildo documents are not available for other Peruvian cities, not to mention more rural or provincial areas.123

Conclusion: An Epilogue for Maria Escobar

Returning to the traditional narrative of Lima’s wheat history, in this chapter my analysis of Cabildo documents has “filled in” the space between the two mythologized events. From shortly after the original introductions of wheat to Lima, the Cabildo’s governance strategies allow us to trace transformations in Lima’s wheat production and consumption patterns over the course of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Cabildo data demonstrate how gradual, self-reinforcing shifts over time resulted in a situation where a single ecological event like a wheat rust infection (or an earthquake) could cause/be blamed for causing such a drastic reorientation of an agricultural production system. In particular, this period reveals that it was not just the rise of a new merchant class, but also the Cabildo’s inability to adapt its underlying strategies (price-setting), and its general aversion to change that shaped Lima’s food system in the early 18th century.

Since the crisis of the late 17th century, Lima’s wheat production has continued to be a topic of interest for Peruvian politicians and agronomists. Beginning with Bravo de

Lagunas, politicians have argued for the importance of national food self-sufficiency and agronomists have sought to adapt Peruvian wheat to various diseases and local climatic conditions. Wheat rusts were a significant obstacle to production throughout Peru, not just in the coastal valleys. Scientists in the 1920s concluded that given Peru’s elevation range, wheat was grown nearly continuously throughout the year, and thus the fungus

123 Some Libros de Cabildos exist for Quito, Cuzco, Trujillo, Piura, Arequipa and others, but none exist continually for so long a time period as Lima (at least in print). See Moore (1954, 285-288) for a complete list.

237 may have been able to pass from crop to crop between districts, making it hard to control

(Abbot 1929). By the 1940s plant breeders finally succeeded in creating a new variety that could resist wheat rust on the Peruvian coast. They named it “Maria Escobar” for the

Spanish woman credited with introducing wheat to Peru (Pulgar Vidal 1946, 98). This variety was brought to Mexico between 1944-1950 as part of the Rockefeller

Foundation’s agricultural experimentation that birthed the Green Revolution (Rupert

1951). In a sense this closes a circle, linking two of the most important historical periods of introductions of new crops on a global scale: the Columbian and Exchange and the

Green Revolution. The Peruvian coast never returned to be a wheat producing area.

Imports of wheat and wheat products have only continued to rise. While annual wheat production increased by nearly 66,000 tons since 1960, annual imports rose by over 1.25 million tons over the same period (CIMMYT 2012).

238 Figure 4.1. Diagram of wheat flows and Cabildo governance strategies in Phase 1: 1535- 1574. During this period wheat was produced locally, in the irrigated "valleys" around the city. Wheat was exported to Panama, and a small quantiy of wheat was imported from unknown locations. Wheat was stored, bought, and sold at the Alhóndiga (municipal granary). Moments of governance key: 1) Buying/Selling and setting official price of wheat at the Alhóndiga; 2) Purchase and transport by Cabildo representatives.

239 Figure 4.2. Map of Trips by Cabildo Representatives to Buy or Inspect Wheat, Phase 1: 1535-1574

240 Figure 4.3. Diagram of wheat flows and Cabildo governance strategies in Phase 2a:1575-1586 (top) and 2b: 1587-1622 (bottom). During both of these periods wheat was produced locally, in the irrigated "valleys" around the city. In Phase 2a some export still occured and the Cabildo representative purchaed wheat at field sites and transported it back to the Alhóndiga. In Phase 2b, export was prohibited and Cabildo representatives now inspected wheat at field sites and merchants/farmers were responsible for its transport to the city. Moments of governance key: 1) Purchase and transport of wheat by Cabildo representatives; 2) Buying/Selling and setting official price of wheat at the Alhóndiga; 3) Inspections of wheat stores in field sites by Cabildo representatives.

241

Figure 4.4. Map of Trips by Cabildo Representatives to Buy or Inspect Wheat, Phase 2a:1575-1586

242

Figure 4.5. Map of Trips by Cabildo Representatives to Buy or Inspect Wheat, Phase 2b: 1587-1622

243 Figure 4.6. Diagram of wheat flows and Cabildo governance strategies in Phase 3: 1623- 1685. During this period wheat was produced locally, in the irrigated "valleys" around the city. Cabildo representatives inspected wheat at field sites and merchants/farmers were responsible for its transport to the city. The Alhóndiga was now closed, so wheat from farmers went directly to bakers. Wheat imported by merchants was store in private storehouses in the port, from where it was sold to bakers. Moments of governance key: 1) Inspection of wheat by Cabildo representatives (transport handled by farmers or merchants); 2) Setting official price of wheat at the Cabildo (Alhóndiga no longer in operation).

244 245 Figure 4.7. Official Cabildo Wheat Prices 1623-1687

Figure 4.8. Map of Trips by Cabildo Representatives to Buy or Inspect Wheat, Phase 3: 1623-1685

246 Figure 4.9. Official Cabildo Wheat Prices 1686-1705. Note: the very high prices of 20-30 pesos/fanega referenced in the text were what wheat was actually selling for, not what the Cabildo had officially set.

247 Figure 4.10. Diagram of wheat flows and Cabildo governance strategies in Phase 4, during the height of the crisis period (1693-1699). Little or no wheat was being produced in Lima and near river valleys to the North and South, and all was being imported by merchants from the sierra (highlands to the East) or from Chile (Viceroyalty to the South). Moments of governance key: 1) Setting official price of wheat at the Cabildo; 2) Inspection and distribution (reparto) of wheat by Cabildo representatives.

248 1600 1614 1700 1790 1797 1820 White 7,193 9,648 19,632 17,215 20,174 25,360 Black 6,631 10,386 7,659 8,960 10,231 - Indian 438 1,978 4,063 3,912 9,744 9,414 Mestizo - 936 3,370 17,709 4,872 20637 Religious - 2,237 2,520 4,831 - - Slave - - - - 17,881 8,589 Total 14,262 25,185 37,244 52,627 62,903 64,000 Population Lima Wheat 31,400 30,000 80,000- Production (1605) (1624) 100,000 Estimate (1630) (fanegas) Lima Wheat 144,000 180,000 240,000 Consumption (1605) (1624) (1630) Estimate (fanegas/year) Table 4.1. Population data for colonial Lima (Quiroz 2008: Table 1.1) with estimates of wheat production in Lima's irrigated valleys and wheat consumption by Lima residents (LCL 3.VII.1624, Assadourian 1982:148, Bravo de Lagunas 1959[1755], 169-170).

249 Price of wheat: Onzas of bread pesos/fanega of sold for 1/4 flour Real to 3 8 to 3.5 7.5 to 4 7 to 4.5 6.5 to 5 6

Table 4.2. 1619 bread cómputo (cómputo de pan) (LCL, Appendix v.16, 614)

250 Price of wheat: Onzas of bread pesos/fanega of flour sold for 1/4 Real to 1.5 8 to 2 7.25 to 2.5 6.75 to 3 6.25 to 3.5 6 to 4 5.5 to 4.5 5.25 to 5 5 to 5.5 4.75 to 6 4.5 to 6.5 4.25 to 7 4 to 7.5 3.75 to 8 3.75 to 8.5 3.5 to 9 3.5 to 9.5 3.25 to 10 3.25 to 10.5 3 to 11 3 to 11.5 2.75 to 12 2.75 to 12.5 2.75 to 13 2.5 to 13.5 2.5 to 14 2.5 to 14.5 2.5 to 15 2.25 to 15.5 2.25 to 16 2.25 to 16.5 2.25 to 17 2 to 17.5 2 to 18 2 to 18.5 2 to 19 2 to 19.5 1.75 to 20 1.75 Table 4.3. 1717 bread cómputo (cómputo de pan) (Bravo de Lagunas 1959 [1755], 150-151, 160-161). Amount of bread sold for
real decreased by 1-2 onzas since the 1619 cómputo.

251 Chapter 5

Conclusions: Contributions of the Technology-Flows-Governance Framework in and beyond the Colonial Period

252 The Technology-Flows-Governance Framework

A millstone forms the central motif of the seal of Lima’s municipal water court

(Juzgado Privativo de Aguas) in the early Republican period (mid 19th century) (Figure

5.1). This captivating image represents a millstone as a rising sun: the furrows on the grinding surface are stylized as rays shining down over Lima’s waterscape. The illustration incorporates many aspects of Lima’s hydraulic and agricultural space, including irrigation for agriculture, springs for drinking water, and waterpower for milling. The symbolism of the sun is also clearly related to the first coat of arms of

Republican Peru, which displays a sun rising over mountains at its center (Figure 5.2).

Given this combination of visual references, this image stands as a summary of the approach to technology, environmental resource flows, and environmental resource governance that I have developed and applied in this dissertation.

Here, I analyzed Lima’s colonial gristmills as sites where flows of water, grain, and people converged as they passed through the city. I conceptualized mills as objects that unify diverse, intersecting, and conflicting, environmental, political, economic, social, and cultural features; and I argued that mills are valuable windows into multiple geographic processes. While here I examined milling and related water and wheat flows during the early to mid-colonial period, milling in Lima continued to be an important endeavor through Peru’s independence and into the Republican period, as represented by the municipal water court seal. For all of these reasons, including the continuity of milling across historical periods, mills have proven to be an ideal starting point for the broader analysis of the relationships between technology, flows, and governance that I have explored in this dissertation (Figure 1.6).

253 Each component of the technology-flows-governance framework can be defined

separately, but I argue that more powerful insights can be achieved when they are

brought together and considered in relation to one another. Throughout this dissertation I

have defined technology as a mediator between humans and the environment. It

represents the way that humans make use of their environment or natural resources, and

consequently it integrates more extensive cultural, technical, and environmental

knowledge. Moreover, technology selection and use has significant cultural and political

connotations, and individual technologies may be used as windows into diverse political,

economic, and social processes. (See Chapter 1, Table 1.1). At the core of my approach,

however, is that a technology is more than just an isolated mechanical device; rather, I

understand a technology as an entity linked to a variety of environmental, political,

economic, and social features, as well as to landscapes (both natural and cultural). To

this end, I have demonstrated the necessity of analyzing technology as situated within

networks of far-reaching social and environmental resource flows, and as components of

broader social-ecological assemblages.124

I have demonstrated that it is particularly useful to explain technology as an entity at which multiple flows –– especially environmental resource flows –– converge. I conceptualize cities much in the same way, as confluences of diverse flows. Here, I have defined Environmental Resource Flows as streams of energy, food, water, raw materials, and wastes that move into and out of technologies and (urban) spaces, where they are metabolized, or transformed into something else (including material goods, wealth, and

124 I use the concept of assemblages to bring together material objects, biophysical processes, political economic structures, landscapes, and the other aspects of my multi-component definition of technology in order to explain and understand particular social-ecological outcomes. (See also Chapter 1, Table 1.2).

254 wastes) (Gandy 2004). Flows drive the urban metabolism and link a city to a much wider region or hinterland. Often the full extent of these flows and linkages to the broader landscape is hidden; sometimes these connections are literally buried (water pipes), other times they are merely forgotten (food origins and commodity chains) (ibid). In this dissertation I have especially considered food and water flows, and I have explained how they were fundamental to the creation of urban space and the daily lives of urban residents in colonial Lima.

Using the case of colonial Lima I show how a city’s metabolism impacts not only the urban space, but also its rural surroundings. Over time, as a city grows it comes to impact an ever-widening countryside, which may be either the area directly surrounding the city or farther away locations linked to the city through long-distance commodity chains. This important observation about Lima parallels work in urban environmental history more generally (Cronon 1991; Gandy 2003; Schott 2004; Swyngedouw 2006), and comparison with this literature suggests still further conclusions. Looking specifically at water supply, we see that cities often seek to control territory outside their borders. Considering food supply, we see that food products are typically imported from the area surrounding the city as well as from more distant locations. When we trace food and water flows spatially, we see that there are significant differences between food and water catchment areas. Water flows (nearly always) require that the catchment territory be contiguous to the consumption area, no matter how large the territory expands, so that water can flow through pipelines from its source to its final destination. Food flows have no such restrictions and may be transported along much longer chains of supply and distribution. In both cases, the technology of transport (pipes versus various shipping

255 mechanisms) proves to be a fundamental influence upon the spatial composition of the flows.

Analysis of environmental resource flows demonstrates the power of cities over a larger region/hinterland, and that decisions made about supplying the city can thus have wide-reaching effects that are not always apparent from the urban core. This indicates that the governance and politics of environmental resource flows also warrant attention.

To this end, I have built upon research in the area of urban political ecology that envisions urban spaces as made up of social-ecological processes that are constantly changing and being contested, and which are never neutral (see also Chapter 1, Table

1.2). Consequently, I recognize that urban environmental resource flows usually benefit some groups while negatively affecting others (Swyngedouw 2006; see also Bakker

2003), and that not all of these groups need to be located within the same urban space.

Frequently, an urban resident’s well being comes at the expense of declining rural conditions, and I argue that tracing out flows can help to identify these relationships.

Given these wider linkages, it is not only the spatiality or materiality of flows that is of importance, but also their political composition.

The governance of environmental resource flows, in other words the way they are regulated or administrated, also plays an important role in shaping their spatial form, including the direction that they flow, their spatial scale, and their magnitude. In addition, governance works to regulate how individuals and groups control, use, and benefit from flows. In this dissertation I have examined governance especially in terms of decision-making about environmental resource flows, and I have looked at the multiple levels, scales, and actors involved in this decision-making. In colonial Lima,

256 these multiple levels of governance included analysis of issues related to the most general level of governance (i.e., the rivalries between the categories of decision-makers especially the three main branches of colonial government –– the Cabildo, the Viceroy and the Church) to the most specific level (i.e., the actual decisions that were made, referred to as government, administration and/or management). The spatial scales analyzed ranged from neighborhood to imperial. The diverse actors included everyone from the Viceroy to the African slaves who worked in the mills, (see Chapter 1, Figure

1.4). I have demonstrated how (successful) governance of water and food flows necessitated managing multiple scales simultaneously and handling the conflicts, competitions, and cooperation between different levels of colonial government and different sectors of society. I have used specific technologies as focal points for analyzing the interactions and connections between these scales, levels, and actors.

More specifically, throughout this dissertation, I have contended that technologies are points at which the governance of flows can be examined and visualized. By this I mean that technology provides a material or physical point at which a decision about the environment or natural resource use can occur, and a flow can be regulated (not to mention “seen” by researchers). I call these moments of governance. Throughout this dissertation I have identified specific moments of governance at which the Cabildo was able to intervene in the flow of water, wheat, or people, presumably in order to ensure a smooth, uninterrupted flow. Certainly technologies are not the only places where potential moments of governance could occur, but oftentimes their physicality, and their potential to integrate many diverse features, makes them particularly interesting and informative points of analysis, especially historical analysis.

257 The perspective of historical political ecology has informed my approach to historical analysis of nature-society relations generally, and my application of the technology-flows-governance framework within a historical context specifically. I introduced and discussed historical political ecology in some detail in previous chapters

(Chapter 1, Table 1.2 and Chapter 2), but most simply this perspective entails analyzing research questions inspired by political ecology about the influence of power, politics, markets, economics, and social relations on land and resource use within historical contexts. Like my approach to environmental resource governance, I have applied this perspective at multiple scales and levels. I have looked at broad scale political relations

(e.g., the Viceroy v. the Cabildo over control of Lima’s hydraulic space), but I have also examined more local, small-scale conflicts (e.g., conflicts between neighbors related to flooding caused by mill canals). Likewise I have considered confrontations among relative social equals (e.g., both the branches of government and neighbors described above), and to a lesser extent I have examined sharper inequalities within colonial-period resource use (e.g., Spanish domination of Indians and Africans). Overall, I have placed strongest emphasis on the smaller, more everyday politics of resource use decision- making. This included examination of rivalries, tensions, conflicts and confrontations, but it also included cooperation and partnerships.

The Lima Case Studies and the Columbian Exchange

In the previous chapters I have applied this overarching Technology-Flows-

Governance framework to three specific case studies of mills, water, and wheat in colonial Lima, Peru (1535-1700). I looked at milling technology, water infrastructure

258 and management, and technologies and administration of wheat production, transport, and processing, as components of the broader flows of water, grain and people that passed through the city of Lima and connected this urban space with a wider rural landscape. These technologies and flows were administrated, managed, and governed by

Lima’s Cabildo (city council), which kept comprehensive records of its actions in this regard. In each of the previous chapters I examined the Technology-Flows-Governance framework from a unique angle. In Chapter 2, I looked at mill technology within the context of water and grain flows and their regulation. In Chapter 3, I examined water flows with respect to infrastructure and its administration. And, in Chapter 4, I analyzed grain governance strategies with consideration for direction, magnitude, and scale of flows of wheat within the context of the wheat-flour-bread cycle.

In each of these three case studies I examined change over a period of more than

150 years, which was made possible by the remarkable continuity of the records of

Lima’s Cabildo (Libros de Cabildos de Lima), my main data source. Using the records of the Cabildo’s weekly or biweekly meetings, I was able to analyze the Cabildo’s governance strategies for mills, water, and wheat over the entire period from 1535-1700.

This meant that I was able to reconstruct and interpret long-term trajectories, including both important changes and continuities. Based on this approach, I argue that analysis of key moments of crisis, interruption, or conflict can often yield insights into broader issues related to social-ecological change. However, just as frequently, such a “crisis” focus can miss or obscure more gradual shifts and transitions that better explain the social- ecological outcomes. For example, I demonstrated the value of a long-term analysis of normal, quotidian, Cabildo governance of Lima’s wheat flows in order to better

259 understand the wheat “crisis” of the late 17th century and the Cabildo’s reactions to it. In this case, I showed how transitions in Lima’s wheat supply patterns over more than a half-century was the underlying cause of the destabilization of local wheat production, and created the context in which the more dramatic trigger cause of a crop infestation could lead to the crisis of local production in the l690s. Beyond this particular example, the idea of a “quotidian” or everyday focus provided the basic foundation for my project

–– gristmills were and are often still are considered lowly artifacts of no great significance and not deserving of special attention.

Additionally, by combining these three major case studies I was able to examine environmental and resource flows at progressively larger scales: from neighborhood and city scale (mills, Chapter 2), to city and regional scale (water, Chapter 3), to regional and colonial, and imperial scale (wheat, Chapter 4). This multi-scalar analysis provided a wider perspective on colonial period social-ecological and landscape transformations. It allowed me to show how mills, located at the very core of Lima’s urban space, were actually sites where far-reaching flows converged. The lowly gristmill thus demonstrates several of the many connections linking Lima, the capital city and primary administrative center of the Peruvian Viceroyalty, to wider networks.

Finally, this approach highlighted interactions and conflicts between different sectors of colonial Lima society due to competing interests in the flows of water and wheat and their governance. Considering the urban political ecology approach discussed above (and also in Chapter 1, Table 1.2), I base my analysis of environmental resource flows on the understanding that flows normally benefit some groups while disadvantaging others. In Lima I have shown that the Cabildo’s governance strategies

260 often placed different groups in conflicting or competing positions. For example,

Cabildo decisions about the placement of drinking water pipelines led to some neighborhoods of the city being privileged over others. This both caused and reinforced differences in the real and perceived wealth and prestige of different neighborhoods and residents. With respect to wheat, Cabildo decisions about pricing of grain and bread necessarily mediated the divergent interests of farmers, merchants, and bakers. Milling fees provide a third example of inter-sectoral conflict; the Cabildo was also the body that set these fees, and in so doing intervened between the different desires of millers and bakers. Throughout all of these decisions it is important to note that the Cabildo was not a neutral social actor. Its strong ties to the landowning class of hacendados made it open to criticism and accusations of everything from conflicts of interest to open corruption, especially with regard to the allocation of water rights. Furthermore, at the broadest level, there were differences and conflicts about the authority of the Cabildo itself, which competed with the Viceroy and the Church for the management of resources.

In order to simultaneously manage resources at diverse scales and mediate between multiple (and often conflicting) social sectors, the Cabildo amassed and applied institutional knowledge about managing mills, water, and wheat. This included understandings about mill construction and use; seasonality of river flow (the

“avenidas”); spring and aquifer protection; canal and pipeline design and maintenance; wheat production in local, regional, and more-distant locations; and relationships between wheat and bread prices. Specific individuals or groups working in conjunction with the

Cabildo were crucial holders of various aspects of this knowledge: for instance the four engineers who maintained the drinking water pipelines over the entire 17th century or the

261 shrimp fishing Indians who were experts in riverbank repair (see Chapter 3).125 This knowledge was also expressed through institutions of municipal governance such as the evaluation of mill petitions, the inspection of weights and measures, the visual inspections of water flow in canals and pipelines (“vista de ojos”), the inspections of wheat quantity and quality (“cala y cato”), and the setting of the fixed scale for wheat and bread pricing that incorporated wheat diversity and quality (cómputo). Financial knowledge, especially awareness of how to balance the diverse funding sources available for municipal projects, was also a key component of the Cabildo’s strategies. Finally, the knowledge developed and applied by the Cabildo was codified in the many municipal ordinances instituted for administrating and regulating mills, water, and grain.

While some of this environmental, technical/mechanical, and institutional knowledge was imported from Spain as part of an Iberian cultural-technical tradition, other aspects were learned and developed within the distinctive social and environmental context of Lima. Not insignificantly, many components of the mill, water, and wheat system used names and words derived from Arabic, or are otherwise traceable to the

Muslim or Moorish occupation of Spain. These include: alhóndiga (municipal granary), alarife (engineer), albañil (construction worker/mason), as well as the reference to

Beatriz la Morisca (The moorish woman credited with introducing wheat to Peru). Many aspects of “Spanish” agriculture and hydraulic engineering are actually of Muslim origin

(Glick 1995, 2005; Glick and Kirchner 2000; Watson 1983). I believe that future research into the Muslim influence on Lima’s colonial period agricultural and hydraulic systems, as well as the Columbian Exchange generally, would yield interesting and significant results. However, it will also be important to continue to investigate how the

125 On these engineers and their assistants in the late 18th century, see Ramón (2011).

262 Spanish traditions and importations (including its Islamic components) were adjusted and adapted in the specific context of Lima. The long-term, quotidian approach I have applied in this dissertation is uniquely situated for reconstructing and interpreting these transformations.

Another important topic for future investigation is to compare the municipal governance practices and institutional knowledge of Lima Cabildo’s with that of other studies of grain and water history in urban contexts. At several points in this and previous chapters I have referenced the work of Cronon (1991) and Gandy (2003), but several additional insights warrant mention here. First, when considering Chicago’s grain markets as described by Cronon (1991), we see that in both Chicago and Lima diversity of grain varieties led to complications in market functioning and regulation.

Different solutions were arrived at in each case, and it would be interesting to investigate why different outcomes were achieved in each city/time period, as well as to identify other solutions and outcomes to the problem of grain diversity in other times and places.

Second, when comparing the development of New York City’s water system (Gandy

2003), to Lima’s municipal drinking water network, we see that Lima’s system was installed much earlier (over 250 years) and was more advanced technologically (buried clay pipes instead of leaky wooden pipes), as well in terms of government (from the outset Lima water supply was seen as a municipal/state responsibility, not a private affair). Again, investigation into the different outcomes in these two cases, and comparison with others requires further research. This last point in particular speaks to the widespread disregard –– intentional or not –– of Spanish scientific and technological advances during the colonial period as well as Spain’s contributions to the Scientific

263 Revolution more generally (Cañizares-Esguerra 2006). For various reasons, many studies of environmental science and technology in the colonial period neglect to mention the Spanish contribution (e.g., Grove 1996; see also discussion of water in colonial cities in Gandy 2004). Yet comparison between Spanish cities and technologies and the cities and technologies of other colonial powers would certainly yield interesting results.

Beyond the conclusions and contributions discussed above that are related to

Lima specifically, in this dissertation I have developed at least three major contributions to Columbian Exchange studies. The first follows the lead set by Carney (2001), and argues that analysis of the colonial-period inter-continental transfers of plants, animals, and diseases should work to situate these biological entities within broader contexts.

Such contexts include the technology and/or production techniques needed for cultivation/livestock-raising, as well as the cultural-technical knowledge systems related to these activities (Carney 1996, 2001). Significantly, these contexts also include the political, economic, and social structures that encouraged and supported the introduction of new crops and animals in the first place (as suggested in Cronon 1983; see also

Merchant 2010). In the example of colonial Lima, we see that the Cabildo purposely tried to support local wheat production and consumption. It encouraged a system of supply and demand that ensured the success of this European crop in this South American location.

The second contribution stems from my spatial perspective on the introduction of agropastoral practices (biological entities and all that came with them). Crops, livestock, technologies and all of the other aspects of the Columbian Exchange were situated within specific landscapes and they influenced social-ecological change extending beyond field,

264 pasture, or mill sites. I have used the concept of environmental resource flows to demonstrate the ways that these individual entities were linked to the broader landscape, and I argue that a multi-site and multi-scalar approach to analysis of colonial period social-ecological change is imperative. Furthermore, cities or urban spaces make up important components of these landscapes. I draw on the approaches of urban metabolism and urban political ecology to understand the widespread environmental impacts of urban spaces. These impacts affect the territory of the city itself, but also a much wider hinterland (food and water catchment area). Cities like Lima were Spanish imports with extensive and long-term social and ecological significance. Therefore, I argue that the introduction of Spanish urbanism should also be considered an important component of the Columbian Exchange.

A third contribution refers to this longer time frame. Many of the social and environmental transformations of the Columbian Exchange and colonialism played out over a long time scale, and the effects of the European introductions to the Americas were not always immediately felt or understood (Knapp 2007). Consequently any analysis of the Columbian Exchange should incorporate chronological depth, as I have done here by looking at mills, water and wheat over a period of more than 150 years.

Mills and the Technology-Flows-Governance Framework beyond the Colonial Period

In conclusion, here I have conceived of mills as objects that unite various environmental, political, economic, social, and cultural features, and from which it is possible to trace any number of actors and processes enrolled into social-ecological relations, networks, or assemblages. While I have focused on colonial period Lima, other

265 geographical and historical contexts where mills and similar technology were used can and should be analyzed from this same perspective. Within Peru, there are at least two additional periods in the history of milling technology where such an analysis could be fruitfully employed. The first centers on the 1939 national census, which included publication of popular booklets by the Peruvian government explaining how the census would contribute to national development and improve the living conditions of its citizens. One of these volumes illustrated the “Typical Occupations of Peruvians”

(Censo 1939), and included a drawing of mills and millers (Figure 5.3). The text accompanying this image called the mill “rudimentary” yet asserted that it was “one of the scarce signs of industrialization of the indigenous economy” (ibid, 13). This text also highlighted that mills used only a “miniscule” amount of the country’s waterpower, and the census took the opportunity to promote future plans for large-scale hydroelectric development (ibid). Thus mills may be placed within the context of the strong state-led development of the mid 20th century, with links to North American capital investment for hydroelectric projects (Carey 2010). They may be used as focal points from which to explore the many interacting components of this important period in Peru’s modern history.

The second potential “mill” study is the current-day interest in micro-scale electric production in rural Andean zones where connection to larger power stations has been a long-term challenge for national and regional governments. The horizontal water- wheel gristmill is the direct technological ancestor of the turbine (Barceló 2004, 268), and has been used as a model for micro-scale hydroelectric generators in rural mountainous areas of Peru, Nepal, India, France and Spain. Some of these “microhydro”

266 projects convert old mills, while others construct new turbines with a significant resemblance to horizontal mills (Bachmann 1983; Khennas 2000; Coello 2007; Saini and

Kumar 2007; Sánchez et al. 2010) (Figure 5.4). Microhydro generators would have similar water requirements and impacts as gristmills, yet they are simultaneously integrated into totally distinct political, economic, and social networks. They are artifacts of a weak state, an infrastructure crisis, and the rising influence of non-governmental organizations. Thus here we see technological innovation and introduction in yet another significant period in Peru’s history.

Both of these case studies analyze mill technology in terms of flows of water, and especially flows of water for hydroelectric development. However, throughout this dissertation I have stressed that mills were sites of confluence of multiple flows. Water is important but so are the flows of food and people that pass through mills. Gristmills are often viewed as remnants of a simpler time and serve as reminders of food traditions of the past. Yet interesting renewals are occurring. In the United States water-powered gristmills have been taken up by promoters of local food movements seeking to produce truly local bread, especially in New England (Sen 2008; Burros 2010). Gristmills are also being used as tourism attractions to capture the popular imagination about past lifeways. One important example is the extensive San Antonio Missions National

Historical Park in San Antonio, Texas, which maintains a horizontal water-wheel gristmill originally dating to the 18th century (National Parks Service 2013) (Figure 5.5).

This mill has become an important component of a much larger urban park and river restoration project. In all of these cases, the core research questions would remain the

267 same; I propose investigating how this technology fits into its broader context, including environmental, landscape, social, political, economic, and cultural components.

These potential case studies deal with different periods, locations, and technologies, yet they demonstrate the wide applicability of the technology-flows- governance approach. In conclusion, I argue that this framework can be applied to many additional contexts, and especially to the analysis of technologies and/or cities and their relationships to the wider landscapes in which they are located. This includes evaluation of sustainability concerns related to technology change and urbanization; tracing flows and their governance is one way of understanding the potentially hidden effects of these transformations. To this end, I suggest a series of research questions based on my results that may be applied in diverse settings: What is the significance of technological innovation or introduction of a new technology, including what are the far reaching landscape effects of this innovation or introduction? What are important environmental resource flows, where do they go, and whom do they serve? Who makes the decisions about these technologies and flows, and how are these technologies and flows governed?

I have found that a focus on “moments of governance” aids in visualizing and understanding the interrelationships between these questions and topics. I contend that technology, given its power to invoke a range of material and symbolic associations, is an excellent point from which to start.

268

Figure 5.1. Seal of Lima's Republican Period Municipal Water Court ("Jusgado Privatibo de Aguas"), from the mid-1800s. This seal was stamped on documents pertaining to the water court held at the AHML (Juzgado de Aguas). The central motif is a millstone: the furrows on the millstone are portrayed as the sun and its rays. The hills drawn on the millstone may stand for the hilly zone where Lima's springs were located. Agricultural pursuits (requiring irrigation) and a drinking water fountain are also portrayed.

269

Figure 5.2. The first coat of arms of Republican Peru, used until 1825. (Source: Wikipedia Commons).

270 Figure 5.3. Illustration of a gristmill from the 1939 Peru National Census. The text reads: "The census will determine the models and precise orientations that should govern the development of national production" (Source: Censo 1939, 12).

271

Figure 5.4. Illustration of micro-scale hydroelectric generation. The text reads: "Water as a source of energy: In our communities there exist diverse natural resources that can be used to generate energy. One of the most important is water, that can be used in micro hydroelectric plants, that transform its [water's] movement into electricity" (Source: Sánchez et al. 2010).

272 Figure 5.5. The restored horizontal water-wheel gristmill at the San Juan Capistrano Mission in the San Antonio Missions National Historic Park, Texas (January 2013). Photos courtesy of Karl Zimmerer.

273 Appendix A Sample data collection form for recording proceedings of the Libros de Cabildos de Lima.

Fecha 14/7/1544 Palabra de Molino Página 88 3/? Vol. completa búsqueda no.

Localización Lima, sitio de molino de Palomino ("ques aRiba del molino e pesa de avendaño") Personajes Alonso Palomino (alcalde), Diego de Agüero (Capitan, Regidor) (cargo u oficio en el Cabildo) Problema Palomino, Aguero e otros oficiales (incluyendo albañiles) van a visitar el sitio del molino que pidió Palomino. Visitan y aprueban el sitio, "ques aRiba del molino e pesa de avendaño", y hazen una carta y Solución titulo de merced. Anotan que hay "condiciones" para el dicho molino y casa y que no puede perjuiciar al agua de los naturales. Vínculos 07/7/1544

TEXTO “en este cabildo el dicho alcalde alonso palomyno propuso como por mandado de sus merçedes se avia ydo a ver e se avia visto el sitio del molino de que les pidio le hiziesen merçed Riberas del Rio desta çibdad e asi mysmo propuso el dicho señor capitan diego de aguero que el por mandado de sus merçedes juntaron con oficiales alvanyles que dello saben avia visto el sitio ques aRiba del molino e pesa de avendaño e do otros linderos por el declarados e que los dichos oficiales con juramento avian dicho sin perjuyzio---

e luego viso por los dichos señores Justiçia e Regimyento desta çibdad lo propuesto he dicho por losd ichos señores Justiçia e Regimyento desta çibdad lo propuesto he dicho por los dichos señores alcaldes alonso palomyno e el capitan diego de aguero e oficiales señalaron el dicho sityo de molino le hazian e hizieron al dicho alonso palomyno alcalde merçed del dicho sityo e solares par el para en que faga el dicho molino cumplido e casas con las condiciones que se suelen dar e sin perjuizio de el agua de los naturales de lo qual señalaron e mandaron dar carta e titulo de merçed en forma e cometieron e mandaron a los señores nyculas de Ribera alcalde e capitan diego de aguero Regidor que le vayan a dar e señalar el dicho sitio de molino e dos solares para el e de todo ello le den la posesion Real corporal en forma e lo firmaron de sus nombres/ alonso palomyno/ nyculas de Ribera/ niculas de Ribera/ Johan de Leon/ paso ante my diego gutierrez escribano publico del conçejo---”

Asistente Res. Martha Bell Fecha 03/4/2011

274 Appendix B Ethnographic Survey of Gristmills in Ancash, Peru (2010-2011)

Horizontal water-wheel gristmills are still used for grinding wheat and other grains into flour in the rural highlands of Peru, and also the other Andean nations of

Bolivia and Ecuador (Gade 1971). Peru's department of Ancash was selected for a regional survey because it is an area with an especially high concentration of functioning mills. Here, Quechua is spoken by the majority of rural residents, and consequently stone mills are known as the Quechua-Spanish combination "Rumi Molino" (Stone Mill). For this study, four trips to Ancash were carried out in 2010 and 2011, and 49 mills were recorded in the Callejón de Huaylas and Callejon de Conchucos regions (in and near the cities of Huaraz, Caraz, Pomabamba and Huari/Uco). (Table B1, Figure B1). These mills were located at elevations ranging from 2221 to 3812 meters above sea level (7287-

12,506 feet). At as many of these mills as was possible, the mill location was mapped using a handheld GPS, the location of the feeder and discharge canals were mapped with a GPS, and scale drawings were made of the mill sites to record structures and connections to water sources. In addition, at as many of the mills as was possible, the mill owner/operator and mill users were interviewed about the milling technology, using a semi-structured interview technique. (Figures B2, B3). Interview subjects spoke

Spanish and Quechua, and a Quechua interpreter was used in some cases.1 Overall, this regional survey approach allowed for the observation of variation within the broad category of horizontal water-wheel gristmill as well as a range of descriptions and discussions with millers and mill users.

1 Giner Aranda translated Quechua in Huari/Uco, Odolín Rodríguez interpreted in Pomabamba.

275 The mills used in Ancash are all of the horizontal water-wheel variety. They are all relatively small, and for the most part are built in the same style, which is similar to that that observed by Gade (1971) in Cuzco, Peru. (Figure B4). Water is supplied to the wheel via an inclined canal built mainly of stone and/or cement (although there were several variations, including: hollowed out tree trunks, iron pipe, and PVC pipe). (Figure

B5). This inclined canal, known as a "chiflón," provided the necessary gravitational force to the water to power the wheel. The chiflón is designed depending on the force of the water flow: adaptations to increase the power of slower/lesser flows include making the chiflón longer, steeper, and/or narrowing the channel as it descends. In several cases water storage tanks were used to build up a stronger water force. The water-wheel is usually made of wood, with wooden slats or spoons ("cucharras") attached to either the outer rim of the wheel or directly to the main axis. On two occasions metal (iron) wheels were observed. (Figure B6). The water wheel is located in a domed chamber constructed of stone, and called "cárcamo." While the millhouse building material varied (although most were adobe), the cárcamo was always stone, for stability and to prevent erosion damage by the constantly flowing water. (Figure B7). After water passes the mill wheel, it drains into a river or canal. Often, this is the same source from which the water was originally drawn, and sometimes the water continues on to power other mills and/or irrigate fields. This reinforces the point that gristmills use but do not consume water.

Ancash mill buildings are all constructed with two levels. The first, lower level is the cárcamo that houses the water-wheel. (Figure B8). The second, upper level, is the mill house where the millstones are located. (Figure B9). The two levels are connected via a wooden axis attached to both the water wheel and the upper millstone. A piece of

276 iron called "pala fierro" is placed at the very top of the wooden axis that extends through

the holes in the millstones. The upper millstone, or the runner stone, is known locally as

the "macho" (male) or "voladora"/"volante" (flying) stone. The bottom stone is known

locally as the "embra" (female) or "batan" (grinding) stone. Various local names are

used for the granitic rock from which the stones are quarried. Most commonly, regional

specialist masons were/are contracted to make millstones. Millstones are furrowed or

"dressed" every so often, depending on the stone quality and the quantity of grain milled.

This ranges from every couple of months to every few years. The pattern of the furrows

varies according to the type of grain that is being ground -- for wheat and other flours

long linear furrows are made, for maize for chicha (maize beer) a circular dotted pattern

is created.2 (Figure B10). Some mills are known as "twins" ("mellizo"): they have two chiflones, two carcamos, two water-wheels and two sets of millstones. (Figure B11).

Water is supplied from local rivers that descend from the cordillera, which often originate in high altitude lakes.3 Water is directed to mills via feeder canals, which vary in length according to local terrain (15-500m), and are constructed specifically for the mill. Mills may also be located along irrigation canals. In both cases, multiple mills may be constructed in rows along the canals. Maintaining the feeder canal and the chiflón are some of the most important tasks for a miller. Given the seasonal high flow events on the

Andean rivers, it is common for canal intakes to be washed out during the rainy season, and in many cases the canals have to be repaired or reconstructed each year. Excess mud and debris must also be cleared from the canals annually. This seasonality of river flow

2 The use of mills for chicha making mainly occurred on haciendas, and consequently has not been practiced since the Agrarian Reform in 1969. 3 On a rare occasion a spring was used to supplement the water from a river used to power the mill. Spring water was collected in a retention tank (Mill ID# 9).

277 also influences when milling can occur. In the dry season, which is May-September, there is less water flow, and often not enough to turn the stones (or they turn slowly and consequently grind grain very slowly). The wheat harvest in the Ancash highlands begins in August, which creates something of a conflict, as grain cannot always be ground immediately upon harvest. However, the major holidays where wheat bread is consumed in Ancash (and the Andes generally) are All Saint's Day (November 1) and

Easter (March-April), which occur during the rainy season, and thus the high flow period.4 Strong flow events related to El Niños are also a threat to mill canals and especially their intakes.

The main water conflict is not related to the seasonality of water availability but rather to the way water is shared between various users. Mills often use the same water that is destined for irrigation and/or fish farms. When the mill is located above the other water uses there is no conflict, as the water flows through the mill and is returned to its channel (canal or river). However, when the other water uses are located above mills, especially irrigation, water flow is lessened and sometimes there is not sufficient to power mills. In these cases millers resort to milling at night, when irrigators are not using the water. There are also conflicts between mills and hydroelectric production, especially in the Callejon de Huaylas. Here, water is often claimed by electricity companies, resulting in conflicts with other water users.

Ancash mills grind a variety of grains, including wheat, maize (and chochoca-

4 Three of the four mill survey trips were during the dry season, given the risk associated with highland travel during the rainy season. However, trips in July and August allowed for the wheat harvest to be observed, including threshing using hoofed animals, and winnowing using pitchforks/wind. During all visits mills were in use, even though during July/August millers and clients complained of lower water flow.

278 boiled and dried maize), barley, oats, peas, and the Andean grains quinoa and kiwicha.

Often, mill clients grind a mixture of these grains together, to make a mixed grain cereal consumed for breakfast. These mixtures are ground at the ratios the clients decide, and usually in small quantities. The speed at which grain is ground varies according to grain, but also, and primarily, according to water flow. As one estimate, one miller stated it would take one hour to grind 72 kilos (one sack) of wheat (C. Alegre, Shoksha, Caraz).

Prices varied by grain type-- grains that took longer to mill cost more. For example: 2 soles/arroba of wheat ($0.75/11.5kg), 2.5 soles/arroba ($0.93/11.5kg) of maize. The ground flour needs to be sifted and divided according to class. The highest, finest class is for bread, the lowest, coarsest class is for pig feed. Clients typically come on foot from among the local community/neighborhood, or with pack animals or motorized vehicles if traveling longer distances. Clients mill in the order that they arrive. In "high" milling season this can lead to long wait times and overnight stays. Mills in use are generally social places, with much conversation, laughing, and joking. There are also many animals in and around mills, including the pack animals, the dogs accompanying clients, the mice stealing grain, and the miller's cat.

Overall, my main objective of this ethnographic analysis was to use understandings derived from current day mills to animate descriptions of mills in colonial documents. Visiting functioning horizontal water-wheel gristmills provided me familiarity with the sites, sounds, and smells of milling. However, while Ancash mills provide important parallels the to the colonial period technology; I only recorded basic information about mill form, function, and use here. Significantly, many current-day millers use old-fashioned vocabulary to describe the components of a mill. The same

279 words are found in the colonial period documents, and I would have found it difficult to interpret these without the Ancash millers' explanations. Miller interviews also identified many issues that were described in colonial documents, especially related to seasonality of water supplies and conflicts with irrigators over water use. These comparisons of water use are interesting, but there are several important distinctions to be made between the highland Ancash mills and the colonial Lima mills. Physically, the differences in terrain and topography in which mills were/are sited would lead to different kinds of water accumulation and supply mechanisms between the highland Ancash (sharply sloped terrain) and coastal Lima (relatively flat terrain) mills. Likely many more water storage/retention tanks were used in Lima. Construction materials, quality of finishing/external structure, and size probably also varied. For example, highland carcamos are made of stone, Lima counterparts were made of brick. Socially, the two contexts are totally different: under no circumstances should the social, political or economic contexts of milling nowadays be equated with those of the colonial past.

Overall, seeing mills, and talking with people who knew how to build them, use them, and maintain them led to richer readings of the colonial documents. It also helped to preserve some of the living knowledge about this technology that has all but died out in Spain and other parts of the Old World. In all of the mill survey areas people were very happy to talk about mills, and most people knew where mills were and generally how they worked. However, very few people actually knew how to build, use, and maintain mills. Those who do are were mainly mill owners, carpenters, handy-men, and masons from the more senior generation. It will be important to continue to record their knowledge of this technology.

280 Table B1. Mill ownership, location, elevation, and dates of visit. ID # corresponds to map in Figure B1. ID Location Date of # Owner (nearest town/city) Latitude Longitude m.a.s.l Visit 1 Asunciona Rojas (1) Acopalca (Huari) -9.3283 -77.1827 2853 11-Jul-11 2 Asunciona Rojas (2) Acopalca (Huari) -9.3298 -77.1801 3031 12-Jul-11 3 Community of Acopalca Acopalca (Huari) -9.3253 -77.1860 3108 11-Jul-11 Margarita Sifuentes de 4 Huaranga Acopalca (Huari) -9.3302 -77.1868 3072 11-Jul-11 11-Jul-11, 5 Lino Blas Acopalca (Huari) -9.3266 -77.1843 2987 31-Jul-11 13-Jul-11, 6 Eliseo Soto Yanuna (Paucas) -9.1524 -76.9068 3196 28-Jul-11 13-Jul-11, 7 Rosa Ramos Yanuna (Paucas) -9.1527 -76.9081 3176 28-Jul-11 13-Jul-11, 8 Leonardo Bayona Yanuna (Paucas) -9.1529 -76.9093 3170 28-Jul-11 13-Jul-11, 9 Familia Aranda Barrio Acorma (Uco) -9.1814 -76.9307 3244 27-Jul-11 10 Melanio Rodriguez Utuy (Uco) -9.1852 -76.9261 3367 29-Jul-11 Cuchichaca 11 Andres Principe (Pomabamba) -8.8328 -77.4969 3261 18-Jul-11 Gueshac (owner Gueschac 12 uknown) (Pomabamba) -8.8201 -77.4865 3078 18-Jul-11 Gollokucho 18-Jul-11, 13 Mario Castillo (Pomabamba) -8.8146 -77.4798 2985 19-Jul-11 Community of 14 Vilcabamba Chuspin (Vilcabamba) -8.8252 -77.4227 3069 19-Jul-11 15 Julian Principe Parko (Pomabamba) -8.8153 -77.4673 2938 19-Jul-11 16 Alberto Quispe Pagcha (Conopa) -8.7734 -77.5435 3812 20-Jul-11 20-Jul-11, 17 Zenon Moreno Ututo (Conopa) -8.7885 -77.5200 3418 21-Jul-11 18 Moises Returerto Bazan Ampogro (Conopa) -8.7919 -77.5108 3262 21-Jul-11 19 Primitiva Cueva Atoqpampa (Huayllan) -8.8486 -77.4365 2779 22-Jul-11 20 Pancha Navarra Atoqpampa (Huayllan) -8.8478 -77.4379 2799 22-Jul-11 21 Guillermina Meza Atoqpampa (Huayllan) -8.8479 -77.4378 2799 22-Jul-11 22 Misael Cueva Vega Paray (Huayllan) -8.8529 -77.4287 2746 22-Jul-11 Manuel Enrique Huaytapucro 23 Escudero (Huayllan) -8.8571 -77.4235 2733 22-Jul-11 Constantino Miranda Tinkurajra-Pomas 25-Jul-11, 24 Valladares (Piscobamba) -8.8428 -77.3669 2511 3-Aug-11 Maximo Caldas Tinkurajra-Pomas 25-Jul-11, 25 Sevillano (Piscobamba) -8.8470 -77.3684 3190 3-Aug-11 Pacchacolpa-Casca 25-Jul-11, 26 Alejandro Guzman Vara (Piscobamba) -8.8571 -77.3721 2968 3-Aug-11 26-Jul-11, 27 Armida Llanos Viscacha (Piscobamba) -8.8922 -77.3509 2835 2-Aug-11 Familia Murga Oliveros 26-Jul-11, 28 (3 mills together) Viscacha (Piscobamba) -8.8942 -77.3513 2810 2-Aug-11

281 Boliche-Pacosbamba 26-Jul-11, 29 Pedro Oliveros (Piscobamba) -8.9094 -77.3681 2517 2-Aug-11 30 Familia Bendezú Yakurakina (Aco) -9.3596 -77.5442 3329 26-Jul-11 6-Aug-10, 18-Oct-10, 31 Miguel Angeles Huinó (Mato) -8.9666 -77.8615 2476 19-Oct-10 32 Miguel Alba Huinó (Mato) -8.9659 -77.8593 2440 9-Aug-10 33 Victor Ramos Huinó (Mato) -8.9666 -77.8622 2469 9-Aug-10 34 Telesforo Ramos Huinó (Mato) -8.9658 -77.8597 2446 9-Aug-10 Footbridge Quilcay 35 Familia Chinchay River (Huaraz) -9.5249 -77.5223 3068 17-Oct-10 Manco Capac Street 16-Oct-10, 36 Pedroso (Huaraz) -9.5233 -77.5244 3084 17-Oct-2010 Hernan (Last name 37 unknown) Nicrupampa (Huaraz) -9.5242 -77.5194 2943 17-Oct-10 Waillac (Owned by city 38 of Huaraz) Waillac (Huaraz) -9.5249 -77.5158 3117 17-Oct-10 Villa Huandy (1) (owner 39 uknown) Villa Huandy (Caraz) -9.0489 -77.8141 2221 20-Oct-10 Villa Huandy (2) (owner 40 uknown) Villa Huandy (Caraz) -9.0489 -77.8160 2309 20-Oct-10 Christian Alegre 20-Oct-10, 41 Figueroa Shoksha (Caraz) -9.0349 -77.8113 2358 11-Feb-2010 42 Community of Wecho Wecho (Lucma) n/a n/a n/a 26-Jul-11 Huanca Molino 43 Victorino Oliveros (Lucma) n/a n/a n/a 26-Jul-11 44 Alfredo Vega Capcha Pacante (Lucma) n/a n/a n/a 26-Jul-11 45 Pedro Rosales Waytapampa (Lucma) n/a n/a n/a 28-Jul-11 46 David Saes Lucma n/a n/a n/a 28-Jul-11 47 Senobia Palomo Lozano Wecho (Lucma) n/a n/a n/a 28-Jul-11 48 Mauro Duran Higos (Lucma) n/a n/a n/a 28-Jul-11 Molino Pampa (owner Molino Pampa 49 uknown) (Huayllan) n/a n/a n/a 29-Jul-11

282 Figure B1. Visited Ancash mills (ID#s recorded in Table B1).

283 Mill ID # Location (Town, Annex, Neighborhood) Owner (and person in charge): Photos (range) GPS Points (range) Name and Date:

Grains milled (names/varieties and prices for milling):

Description of the water source (include days milling occurs)

Client Origin (and grains they bring):

Sketch mill and feeder/drainage canals on separate sheet, note location of other nearby mills.

Figure B2 Mill survey data collection form.

284 Interview Topics/Questionnaire (English Translation) Although written in the form of questions, these are prompts for the interviewer. Actual interviews will proceed as open-ended conversations. Questions for mill owners, millers, and people who have hands-on experience using mills: Location -Where is the mill located? -Is the mill located near a river? A canal? A road? -Are other mills located nearby? -How long does it take to travel to the mill from nearby landmarks (e.g. main village center, main road, etc—specific locations to be elaborated based on actual location). Structure -Please describe the mill structure (open-ended question, follow-up prompts below) - millstones - hopper/agitator - water wheel - grain box - water supply - building itself (only a mill? Also a house? What else is contained in the mill) -what tools are kept/stored in the mill? -What are local names for the mill components listed above? -Please describe how the structure was built. Where were the different materials obtained? Who built the structure originally? (open-ended question, consider follow-up points above) -Please describe how the structure is maintained. Maintenance frequency? Who performs the labor? (open-ended question, consider follow-up points above) Water Supply -How is water supplied to the mill? -Where does the water come from (River? Canal?) -What methods are used for directing the water (Canals? Sluices? Chutes? Other?) -What methods are used for accumulating water (Ponds? Tanks? Vertical Penstocks?) -Does enough water flow all year round? What is the seasonality of water supply? -Is permission required to use water for milling? Who gives this permission/ how is it obtained? Is there a fee for using the water? -Is the same water used for irrigation? Explain the arrangement with water use for irrigation. -Is the same water used for other mills? Explain the arrangement between mills. Grain -What kinds of grain are milled? Please provide crop names as well as any additional local names. -What is the desired product? (Flour? De-husking? Other?) -Where does the grain come from? -Who brings the grain? (Farmers? Merchants?) How do they arrive? Where do they take it after it is milled? -Does grain milling occur throughout the year? If not, during what seasons does milling occur? -What are the units of measurement for grain? Is the grain measured before milling? After it is turned into flour/other product? How is this done? -How much grain can be milled in an hour? In a day? (Use local units in this case) -How is the miller paid? By quantity of grain? By unit of time? Is payment made in cash? In grain? By other methods? -Are there other methods of obtaining these desired products? (Motorized mills? Stores selling non-local products?) Evaluate these different methods Mill History -How long has the mill been in operation? Who constructed it? When was it constructed? -Did there used to be more/fewer/the same number of mills in this area? -Within memory has milling stayed the same over time? If not, describe how it has changed. Why do you think these changes have occurred?

Figure B3. Interview topics/questionnaire, applied as possible at Ancash mills.

285

Figure B4. Exterior of a typical horizontal water-wheel gristmill (single stone) in Ancash, Peru. Note the stone/cement inclined canal powering the wheel. (Mill ID #31, Operated by Miguel Angeles)

286 Figure B5. Sample scale diagram (view from above) from mill survey. Mill represented is owned by Mario Castillo (Mill ID# 13).

287 Figure B6. Inclined canals ("chiflón") constructed from various materials: top left: stone and cement (Mill ID#23, top right: cement and buried PVC pipe (Mill ID#14), bottom left: stone and hollow tree trunk (Mill ID#28), bottom right: iron pipe left over from a local hydroelectric project from the 1960s (Mill ID#15).

288 Figure B7, Water wheel varieties. Left (Mill ID#18): Iron, Top Right (Mill ID#14): Wood with slats/spoons ("cucharras") attached to outer rim of wheel, Bottom Right (Mill ID#8): Wood with slats/spoons ("cucharras") attached to main axis of wheel.

289 Figure B8. Exterior of millhouse showing two level construction: Cárcamo or water wheel chamber on bottom level. Millstones/grinding room on upper level. The rectangular or arc- shaped cárcamo opening makes mills easy to identify. Top: Mill ID #23, Bottom left: Mill ID#41, Bottom Right: Mill ID#25.

290 Figure B9. Interior of mill houses, showing millstones and hoppers feeding grain into them. Note materials used to make grain hoppers include wood (top and bottom left, Mill ID #s 4 and 13), metal (top right, Mill ID #41) and cheap particleboard (bottom right, Mill ID #14). A wooden or cement grain box surrounds each set of millstones, to collect the flour.

291 Figure B10. Examples of millstones for grinding wheat (left, Mill ID #28) and maize for chicha (right, Mill #41)

292 Figure B11. Example of a functioning double stone mill. Water is coming draining out of two separate water wheels. (Mill ID # 44)

293 Glossary

Batan - bottom, stationary millstone Cárcamo - domed chamber in which water-wheel is positioned Chiflón - inclined canal used to provide gravitational force to water to power water wheel Cruzeta - base upon which the water-wheel axis turns, can be adjusted to make the wheel turn faster or slower. Cucharra - wooden paddle attached to mill wheels to catch the water force Mariposa - "butterfly," water-wheel Marey - bottom, stationary millstone Mellizo - "twins," mill with two wheels/sets of millstones Pala Fierro - piece of metal that attaches the wooden axis to the upper runner stone Piedra Embra - bottom, stationary millstone, the "female" stone Piedra Macho - upper runner millstone, the "male" stone Rumi Molino - stone mill in Quechua-Spanish Solera - bottom, stationary millstone Tolva - Grain hopper Tuñay - upper runner millstone, because it "dances" Voladora/Volante - upper runner millstone, called "voladora" ("flyer") because sometimes the vertical axis breaks and the stone goes flying.

294 Appendix C Water Authorities in Colonial Lima listed in the Libros de Cabildos de Lima. Authorities include the Water Judge (Juez de Aguas); the Pipeline and Levee Commissioners; and the official in charge of cleaning and maintenance of the water pipes, reservoirs, and fountains (later called Head/Major Fountaineer [Fontanero Mayor]); as well as Commissioners and Guards related specifically to the main reservoir near the springs. The Water Judge (WJ) and Commissioners are Regidores (Councilmen), unless indicated that they are Alcaldes Ordinarios (AO) (Mayors). Titles such as Don, Doctor, or other Military are not included for space constraints. The vast majority of the regidores and alcaldes used the "Don" title. Other positions mentioned in the LCL but not included in this table: Guard of the Public Fountain in the Main Plaza (Guarda de la Pila de la Plaza): Francisco Vasquez (1666-1671); Authority for the Division of Water in the Pipelines (Repartimiento de agua de las cañerias): Juan de Zarate and Sebastian de Alcozer Alarcon (1618). Dates written as day.month(Roman Numeral).year. Question mark ("?") indicates uncertainty.

Year Water Judge Pipeline Commissioners (for the Levee Commissioners2 Cleaning and Maintenance Reservoir Reservoir (WJ) repair of pipes, fountains and of the Water Pipes, Commisioners4 Guard5 reservoirs)1 Reservoirs, and Fountains;3 (with salary when available) 1600 Francisco de Jacome Bresanino (100 Ampuero pesos) 1601 Hernan Carrillo de Cordoba 1602 Andres Sanchez 1603 Andres Sanchez "person in charge" 1604 Nicolas de Ribera y Luys Rramirez (100 pesos) Abalos

1 Comisarios para el Reparo de Cañerías, Fuentes y Almacenes de Agua/ Comisarios de Cañerias 2 Comisarios para Reparos de los Tajamares/ Comisarios de Tajamares 3 Limpieza y Aderezo de la Cañería, Almacenes y Fuentes de Agua / Fontanero Mayor 4 Comisarios de la Caja de Agua 5 Guarda de la Caja de Agua

295 1605 Diego Nuñez de Miguel Geronimo (100 Figueroa pesos) 1606 Baltasar de Lorca(?) Miguel Geronimo (100 pesos) 1607 Francisco de Miguel Geronimo (100 Ampuero pesos) 1608 Nicolas de Ribera y Antonio Monroy (AO), Martin de Miguel Geronimo (100 Abalos Anpuero; after 11.VII.1608 Juan pesos) de la Cueba y Billabicencio (AO), Diego de la Presa 1609 Alonso de Figueroa Fernando de Cordoba y Figueroa Miguel Geronimo (100 Estupiñan (AO), Diego de la Presa pesos), replaced by Pedro Belasco on 14.XII.1609 (150 pesos) 1610 Martin de Ampuero Lope de Mendoza (AO), Martin Pedro Blasco de Ampuero (WJ), on 31.VIII.1609 Francisco de Leon 1611 Simon Luys de Pedro Gutierrez de Mendoça Miguel Geronimo (100 Luçio (AO), Simon Luys de Luçio (WJ) pesos) 1612 Nicolas de Rivera y Luis de la Rinaga Salazar (AO), Martin de Anpuero, Miguel Geronimo Abalos Martin de Ampuero from 4.I.1612 Francisco de Mansilla -II.1612 (death), replaced by Marroqui (Only the San Leandro Rinaga Salazar Francisco levee zone) 29.III.1612 1613 Leandro de la Lost Folios Lost Folios Miguel Geronimo Rinaga Salazar 1614 Antonio de Leon Antonio de Ulloa y Contreras Antonio de Ulloa y Contreras Miguel Geronimo Garabito (AO), Francisco Ceberino de (AO), Xpoual Arriaga Dalarc Torres, Antonio de Leon Garabito (WJ) 1615 Cristobal Arriaga de Fernando de Cordova y Figueroa "the commissioners will Alaracon (AO), Antonio de Leon Garabito name a person"

1616 Leandro de la Juan de la Cueva y Villavicencio, Rinaga Salazar Antonio de Leon Garabito

296 1617 Gonzalo Prieto de Diego de Carbajal (AO), Gonzalo Abreu Prieto de Abreu 1618 Juan Cavallero de Juan de Zarate, Sebastian de Tejada Alcozer Alarcon 1619 Diego Darçe Diego de Caruajal (AO), Albaro Diego de Caruajal (AO), Aspilcueta de Torres y Bohorquez, Julian de Gonçalo de Prieto, Diego de Lorca Ribera 1620 Diego Nuñez de Pedro de Bedoya y Guebara Pedro de Bedoya (AO), Campoverde (AO), Diego Darçe Aspilcueta Gonçalo Prieto, Juan Caballero 1621 Geronimo Lopez de Diego Darçe de Leon (I.1621- Domingo de Cabezas Saavedra 4.III.1621, Albaro de Torres (4.III.1621-31.XII.1621), Juan Arebalo Despinosa (AO) 1622 Julian de Lorca Domingo de Cabezas 1623 Antonio de Ribera Luis Fernandez de Cordoba (AO), Luis Fernandez de Cordoba Domingo de Cabezas Zambrano (1.I.1623- Alonso de Paredes Zambrano (AO), Tomas de Paredes 2.X.1623, for health (AO) reasons), Julian de Lorca (6.X.1623- 31.XII.1623) 1624 Juan Arias de Pedro de Bedoya y Guevara Pedro de Bedoya y Guevara Valencia (AO), Juan de Salinas, Alonso de (AO), Tomas de Paredes , Paredes Zanbrano (28.III.1624) Pedro Sanchez Garces 1625 Juan de Salinas Antonio de Ulloa y Contreras Antonio de Ulloa y Contreras Clemente de Mansilla (AO), Alonso de Paredes (AO), Geronimo Lopez de Zanbrano Saabedra , Melchor Malo de Molino

1626 Julian de Lorca Pedro de Sotomayor (AO), Juan de la Cueba (AO), Alonso de Paredes, Melchor Malo Tomas de Paredes, Melchor de Molina Malo de Molina 1627 Alonso de Paredes Luis de Mendoza (AO), Juan Juan de la Cueba (AO), Zambrano Arias de Balençia , Pedro Sanchez Julian de Lorca, Thomas de Garçes Paredes

297 1628 ? Juan de Guzman (AO.), Juan Juan de la Serna (AO), Julian Arias de Balencia, Pedro Sanchez de Lorca, Juan de Salinas Garçes 1629 Julian de Lorca Pedro de Sotomayor (AO), Tomas Jusepe de Ribera y Abalos Clemente de Mansilla (1.I.1629-20.X. de Paredes, Pedro Sanchez Garçes (AO), Julian de Lorca, 1629), Diego Nuñez Alonso de Paredes Campoberde (24.X. 1629-31.XII. 1629) 1630 Francisco Marquez Juan de los Rios y Berriz (AO), Pedro de Bedoya y Guebara Clemente de Mansilla Davila Francisco Marquez Davila (WJ), (AO), Diego Nuñez de Pedro Bermudez Campoberde, Juan de Salinas

1631 Juan Sanchez de Leon 1632 Juan de Salinas Luis de Mendoza y Ribera (AO), Gabriel de Acuña y Berdugo to be selected by pipeline Alonso de Paredes Zanbrano , (AO), Julian de Lorca, commissioners Juan de Salinas (WJ) Nicolas Flores 1633 Nicolas Flores Luis de Mendoza y Rivera (AO), Gabriel de Acuña Verdugo to be selected by pipeline Nicolas Flores (WJ), Antonio (AO), Julian de Lorca, Juan commissioners Suarez de Medina de Salinas, Doctor Nicolas Flores (WJ) 1634 Julian de Lorca Josephe de Mendoça y Costilla Fernando de Castilla, Juan de Clemente de Mansilla (4 (1.I.1634- 23.III. (AO), Julian de Lorca (WJ), Salinas, Pedro de Hazaña months), Juan de Mansilla (8 1634), Gonzalo Alonso de Paredes months) Prieto de Abreu (23.III.1634- ?) 1635 Pedro De Hazaña Antonio de la Daga y Vargas Pedro de Vega (AO), Juan de Juan de Mansilla (AO), Antonio Suarez de Medina Salinas, Pedro de Hazaña (I.1635-IX.1635, death), replaced (WJ) by Pedro de Hazaña (WJ) (14.IX.1635-31.XII.1635), Pedro Camacho de la Cueba 1636 Juan de Salinas Juan de Valencia (AO), Juan de Pedro de la Cueva (AO), Juan de Mansilla Salinas (WJ) Juan Sanchez de Leon, Pedro de Hazaña

298 1637 Josephe Delgadillo Domingo de Olea (AO), Alonso Yñigo Lopez de Zuñiga to be selected by pipeline de Sotomayor de Paredes, Pedro Bermudez , (AO), Pedro de Hazaña, commissioners Josephe Delgadillo (WJ) Bartolome de Hazaña 1638 Lost Folios Lost Folios Lost Folios Lost Folios 1639 Lost Folios Lost Folios Lost Folios Lost Folios 1640 Julian de Lorca Alonso de Paredes (AO), Julian Juan de los Rios (AO), Juan Juan de Mansilla de Lorca (WJ), Melchor Malo de de Salinas, Bartholome de Molina, Alonso de Bustamante, Hazaña Bartholome de Hazaña 1641 Juan Sanchez de Rodrigo de Vargas y Carvaxal Felipe de Espinosa y Mieses Juan de Mansilla Leon (salary 1003 (AO), Diego de Ayala y (AO), Bartolome de Hazaña, pesos this year) Contreras, Alonso de Bustamente, Pedro de el Castillo Guzman Antonio Dies de San Miguel y Solier 1642 Pedro del Castillo Fernando de Castilla Altamirano Fernando de Castilla Juan de Mansilla Gusman (AO), Diego de Ayala y Altamirano (AO), Thomas de Contreras, Pedro Bermudes, Juan Avendaño, Pedro del Castillo de Figueroa Gusman 1643 Julian de Lorca Thomas de Avendaño (AO), Thomas de Avendaño (AO), Juan de Mansilla Pedro Bermudez, Antonio Dies de Bartolome de Hazaña, Pedro San Miguel y Solier, Julian de de Castillo Gusman Lorca (WJ) 1644 Francisco Arce de Alvaro de los Rios Villafuerte Bartholome de Hazaña (AO), Juan de Mansilla Sevilla (1.I.1644- (AO), Alonsso de Paredes, Pedro Francisco Arce de Sevilla 21.III.1644), Joseph Bermudes, Thomas de Avendaño (WJ), Diego Fajardo de Tamayo (23.III. Campoverde 1644-31.XII.1644) 1645 Juan de Aguirre Gabriel de Castilla y Lugo (AO), Juan de Figueroa (AO), Juan de Mansilla Malado Alonso de Paredes, Pedro Diego Fajardo de Bermudez, Bartolome de Hazaña Campoberde, Francisco Arce de Sevilla 1646 Juan de Aguirre Luis de Carbaxal (AO), Alonso de Nicolas Flores (AO), Juan de Juan de Mansilla Malado (1.I.1645- Paredes, Bartolome de Hazaña, Figueroa, Bartolome de 27.XI.1645) Felipe de Espinossa y Miesses Hazaña

299 1647 Diego Bermudez de Pedro de Bedoya y Guevara (AO) Francisco Arce de Sevilla Juan de Mansilla la Torre Francisco de Torres, Pedro (AO), Alonso de Paredes , Bermudez Bartolome de Hazaña 1648 Alonso de Alvaro de los Rios y Berriz (AO), Ordoño de Samudio (AO), Juan de Mansilla Bustamante Nicolas Flores, Bartolome de Bartolome de Hazaña, Felipe (1.I.1648- Hazaña , Alonso de Bustamante de Espinosa y Miesses 13.I.1648), Bartolome de Hazaña (15.I.1648- 31.XII.1651) 1649 Bartolome de Luis de Mendoza Carbaxal (AO), Joseph de Mendoza y Juan de Mansilla Hazaña Thomas de Avendaño, Nicolas Costilla (AO), Bartolome de Flores , Bartolome de Hazaña Hazaña (WJ), Felipe de (WJ), Felipe de Espinossa y Espinossa y Miesses Miesses, Alonso de Bustamante 1650 Bartolome de Pedro de la Cueva (AO), Gabriel de Castilla y Lugo, Juan de Mansilla Hazaña Bartolome Hazaña (WJ), Felipe Alonso Sanchez Salvador, de Espinosa y Mieses, Alonso de Francisco Faxardo de Bustamante, Ordoño de Samudio Campoverde 1651 Bartolome de Pedro de la Cueva (AO), Gabriel de Castilla y Lugo Juan de Mansilla Hazaña Francisco Severino de Torres, (AO), Alonso Sánchez Julian de Lorca, Francisco Arze Salvador, Francisco Faxardo de Sevilla, Francisco Faxardo de de Campoverde Campoverde 1652 Francisco Arce de Francisco de la Cueva (AO), Joseph Delgadillo de Juan de Mansilla Sevilla (probable) Ordoño de Samudio, Francisco Sotomayor (AO), Alonso Faxardo de Campoberde (AO) Sanches Salbador, Francisco Faxardo de Campoverde 1653 Francisco Arce de Francisco de la Cueva y Guzman Joseph Delgadillo Sotomayor Juan de Mansilla Sevilla (probable) (AO), Ordoño de Samudio, (AO), Alonso Sanchez Francisco Faxardo de Salvador, Francisco Faxardo Campoberde, Diego Bermudez de de Campoverde la Torre

300 1654 Nicolas Flores Pedro Joseph de Castro Isasaga, Bartolome de Hazaña, Felipe Juan de Mansilla Joan de Figueroa, Ordoño de de Espinosa y Mieses, Samudio, Alonso Sanchez Sargento Mayor Diego de Salvador, Diego Bermudez de la Losa Bravo Torre 1655 Diego de Losa Felipe de Espinosa y Miesses Felipe de Espinosa y Miesses Juan de Mansilla Bravo (AO); Nicolas Flores; Joan de (AO), Ordoño de Samudio. Figueroa; Ordoño de Samudio; Diego de Losa Bravo (WJ) Diego Bermudez de la Torre 1656 Alonso Laso de la Ordoño de Samudio, Juan Ochoa Juan de Mansilla Pedro Vega Salmeron (AO), Juan de Figueroa Fernandez de Valdez (240 pesos/ year) 1657 Felipe de Espinoza y Nicolas Fernandez de Diego Bermudes de la Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Mieses (1.I.1657-25. Villavicencio (AO), Juan de Torres, Juan de Ochoa, V.1657; Francisco Figueroa, Contador Ordoño de Ordoño de Samudio, Diego Almoguera y Samudio de Losa Bravo Pastrana (25.V. 1657-31.XII.1657) 1658 Francisco de Gabriel de Bega de la Rinaga Antonio Bravo de Lagunas Juan de Mansilla and Pedro Almoguera y (AO), Joan de Figueroa, Ordoño (AO), Juan de Ochoa Fernandez de Valdez Pastrana de Samudio, Pedro Alvarez de Salmeron, Ordoño de Espinosa Samudio 1659 ? ? ? ? 1660 Antonio de Campos Gabriel de Castilla y Lugo (AO), Joseph Delgadillo de Juan de Mansilla Benavides Felipe de Espinosa y Mieses, Sotomayor (AO), Juan Ochoa Ordoño de Zamudio , Juan Prieto Salmeron, Ordoño de de Abreu Samudio , Alonso Laso de la Vega 1661 Antonio de Campos Sebastian de Navarete (AO), Alonso de la Cueva Mesia Juan de Mansilla and Pedro Benavides Ordoño de Samudio , Francisco (AO), Ordoño de Samudio Fernandez de Valdez de Almoguera y Pastrana , Francisco Fernandez de Abasto 1662 Antonio de Campos ? ? Benavides

301 1663 Antonio de Campos ? ? Benavides 1664 Francisco Arce de ? ? ? Sevilla 1665 Francisco Arce de Thomas Barrito de Castro (AO), Juan de la Celda (AO), Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Sevilla Bartolome de Hazaña , Nicolas de Francisco Fernandes de Torres y Bohorques. Francisco de Abasto, Francisco de Haro Haro , Ordoño de Samudio , Antonio de Campos Marin de Benavides 1666 Alonso de Leon y Gabriel de Castilla y Lugo (AO), Joseph de Mendoza y Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Contreras Nicolas de Torres y Bohorques, Costilla (AO), Francisco (Juan de Mansilla died this Bartolome de Hazaña, Ordoño de Fernandes de Abasto, year) Samudio Francisco de Hazo 1667 Alonso de Leon y Juan de la Presa y de la Cueba Joseph de Torres y Zuñiga, Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Contreras (AO), Nicolas de Torres y Antonio de Campos, Bohorquez, Bartolome de Hazaña, Francisco de Haro Ordoño de Samudio 1668 Alonso de Leon y Bartolome de Hazaña (AO), Yñigo de Torres y Zuñiga Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Contreras (1.I.1668- Nicolas de Torres y Bohorques, (AO), Antonio de Campos, 6.IV.1668), Felipe de Espinosa y Mieses , Francisco de Haro Francisco de Arce Ordoño de Samudio de Sevilla (6.IV.1668-30.VII. 1668), Juan de la Selda Verdugo (30.VII.1668- 31.XII.1668) 1669 Juan de la Selda Albaro de los Rios Billafuerte Albaro de los Rios y Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Berdugo (AO), Nicolas de Torres, Ordoño Billafuerte (AO), Francisco de Samudio , Juan de la Selda de Haro, Gaspar Delgadillo (WJ)

302 1670 Alonso Laso de la Francisco Mesia Ramon (AO), Martin de Savala y de la Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Vega and Antonio Nicolas de Torres y Bohorquez , Masa (AO), Francisco de de Campos (City), Ordoño de Samudio , Juan de la Haro, Gaspar Delgadillo Nicolas de Torres y Celda (replaced by Francisco Bohorques Delgadillo Sotomayor on (Country) 17.V.1670) 1671 Alonso Laso de la Antonio de Campos Marin de Garcia de Yxar y Mendoza Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Vega y Francisco Benavides (AO), Nicolas de (AO), Francisco de Hara, Delgadillo de Torres y Bohorquez (WJ), Juan de Francisco Delgadillo de Sotomayor (until la Celda, Ordoño Samudio Sotomayor (WJ) 6.II.1671) (City), Nicolas de Torres y Bohorques (Country) 1672 Antonio de Campos Joseph de la Vega (AO), Ordoño Alonso Laso de la Vega Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Benavides de Samudio, Juan Prieto de Abreu (AO), Diego Bermudes, Francisco Delgadillo de Sotomayor 1673 Alonso de Leon Fernando de Cordova (AO), Fernando de Cordova Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Diego de Contreras (City), Ordoño de Samudio , Juan Prieto Ysande, Diego Bermudes de Cuellar (5. Nicolas de Torres y de Abreu la Torre, Francisco VII.1673) Bohorquez Delgadillo de Sotomayor (Country)

303 1674 Luis Vejarano Gil de Cabrera y Davalos, Ordoño Gil de Cabrera y Davalos, Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Juan Fernandez de de Samudio, Juan Prieto de Abeu, Diego Bermudes de la Torre, Fernandez Cordova, replaced Luis Vejarano Fernandez de Francisco Delgadillo de de Valdez by Antonio de Cordova, Felipe de Espinosa y Sotomayor (17.X.1674) Campos (3.II.1674), Mieses replaced by Francisco Manuel de Villena (4.V .1674), Nicolas de Torres y Bohorques named WJ for Magdalena, Maranga, and la Legua (15.VI. 1674), Diego de Teves Manrrique named new WJ (20.V.1674) 1675 Diego de Teves Garcia de Yxar y Mendoza (AO), Garcia de Yxar y Mendoza Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Diego de Teves Juan Manrrique de Lara Ordoño de Samudio, Diego de (AO), Francisco Delgadillo Manrrique de Fernandez Teves Manrrique de Lara (WJ) de Sotomayor, Diego de Lara, Francisco de Valdez Teves Manrrique de Lara Manuel de (WJ) Villena 1676 Joseph de Aguero y Luis Antonio Bexarano Fernandes Luis Antonio Bexarano Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Añasco de Cordova (AO), Joseph de Fernandes de Cordova (AO), Castro (AO), Pedro Lazcano Francisco Delgadillo de Centen de Valdez, Ordoño de Sotomayor, Joseph de Samudio , Diego de Teves Aguero (AO) Manrique de Lara

304 1677 Antonio de Campos Maestro de Campo Nicolas Nicolas Davalos de Rivera Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Nicolas Davalos Benavides, Nicolas Davalos de Rivera (AO), Pedro (AO), Antonio de Campos de Rivera, Pedro Davalos de Ribera Lescano, Ordoño de Samudio Marin de Venavides (WJ), Lescano, Ordoño (interim WJ, after Francisco Delgadillo de de Samudio death of Campos on Sotomayor 10.IV.1677), Nicolas de Torres y Bohorquez (25.VI.1677) 1678 Alonso de Leon y Graviel de Castilla y Lugo (AO), Francico Delgadillo, Joseph Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Pedro Lezcano Contreras Ordoño de Samudio, Luis de Aguero, Alonso de Leon y Zenteno de Bexarano Fernandes de Cordoba Contreras (WJ) Baldes, Ordoño de Samudio, Luis Bexarano Fernandez de Cordoba 1679 Joseph de Aguero y Juan de la Pressa y de la Cueva Juan de Urdanigui (AO), Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Juan de Añasco (AO), Pedro Lescano, Ordoño de Alonso Lazo de la Vega, Urdanigui (AO), Samudio, Joseph de Aguero y Joseph de Aguero y Añasco Juan de la Pressa Añasco (WJ) (WJ) y de la Cueva (AO), Pedro Lascano Centeno de Valdez, Joseph Bexarano Fernandes de Cordova, Ordoño de Samudio 1680 Joseph de Aguero y Juan Voldan Dabila (AO), Pedro Fernando de Perales y Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Juan Voldan Añasco Lescano Senteno de Baldes, Saabedra (AO), Joseph de Dabila (AO), Ordoño de Samudio, Diego Aguero y Añasco, Pedro Pedro Lescano Manrique de Lara, Joseph de Romero de Sotomayor Senteo de Aguero y Añasco (WJ) (Joseph de Aguero y Añasco Baldes, Ordoño and Luis de Sandobal de Samudio, replaced Perales and Romero Diego Manrique on 1.VIII.1680) de Lara, Joseph de Aguero y Añasco (WJ)

305 1681 Joseph de Aguero y Ordoño de Samudio (AO), Luis Joseph de Aguero y Añasco Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Both AOs, Añasco de Sandoval y Guzman (AO), (WJ), Pedro Romero de (?) Nicolas de Joseph de Aguero y Añasco (WJ) Camaño y Sotomayor Torres y Bohorquez, Joseph de Aguero y Añasco (WJ) 1682 Pedro Romero Sancho de Castro, Pedro Romero Melchor Malo de Molina y Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Pipeline Camaño y Camaño y Sotomayor (WJ), Sotomayor, Joseph Bejarano (?) Commissioners Sotomayor Ordoño de Samudio, Luis de Fernandez de Cordova, Pedro Sandobal y Gusman Romero Camaño de Sotomayor 1683 Joseph de Aguero y Diego Manrrique de Lara, Ordoño Alonso Laso de la Vega Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Pipeline Añasco de Samudio, Luis de Sandobal y (AO), Joseph de Vejarano (?) Commissioners Guzman, Joseph de Aguero y Fernandez de Cordoba, Pedro Añasco (WJ) Romero Camaño y Sotomayor 1684 Rodrigo de Villela y Nicolas Davalos de Rivera (AO), Juan de la Selda Verdugo Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Pipeline Esquibel Juan de [Folio cut], Joseph (AO), Pedro de Hazaña, (?) Commissioners Bejarano, Rodrio de Villela (WJ), Pedro Romero de Camaño y Pedro [Folio Cut], Martin de Sotomayor Samudio 1685 Joseph Vejarano Fernando de Espinosa y Pastrana Fernando de Espinosa y Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Pipeline (AO), Rodrigo de Villela y Pastrana (AO), Pedro (?) Commissioners Esquibel (AO), Joseph Bejarano Hazaña, Pedro Romero de (WJ), Diego Hurtado de Mendoza Camaño y Sotomayor 1686 Pedro Lascano Diego Manrrique de Lara (AO), Diego Manrrique de Lara Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Pipeline Juan Centeno de Valdez Pedro Lascano Centeno de Valdez (AO), Pedro de Hazaña, Juan Commissioners Fernandez (WJ), Alonso Hurtado de Saenz Cascante de Valdez Mendoza. Hurtado was replaced (named on by Diego Hurtado de Mendosa 8.XI.1686) (12.II.1686)

306 1687 Pedro Lascano Joseph de Aguero y Añasco (AO), Pedro Segara de Gusman Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Pedro Lascano Centeno de Valdez Pedro Segarra de Gusman (AO), (AO), Pedro de Hazaña , (?) (WJ), Gaspar de Pedro Lascano (WJ), Diego Juan Cascante Perales y Hurtado de Mendoza Saabedra, the Pipeline Commissioners 1688 Pedro de Hazaña Rodrigo de Mendoza (AO), Diego Diego Hurtado de Mendoza Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Pedro de Hazaña Juan Solis y Palacios Hurtado de Mendoza (AO), Pedro (AO), Pedro de Hazaña (WJ), (?) (WJ), Gaspar de Fernandez de Hazaña (WJ) Juan Saenz Cascante Perales, the de Valdez Pipeline Commissioners 1689 Juan Saenz Cascante Diego de Carvajal (AO), Pedro de Pedro de Hazaña (AO), Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Both AOs, the Hazaña (AO), Juan Saenz Joseph de Merino, Juan First mention "Fontanero WJ, Gaspar de Cascante (WJ) Saenz Cascante (WJ) Mayor" (Head/Major Perales y Fountaineer) on 7.X.1689 Saavedra 1690 Pedro Lascano Francisco Delgadillo y Sotomayor Pedro de Llano Zapata (AO), Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Pedro de Llano Juan Centeno de Valdez (AO), Pedro de Llano Zapata, Pedro Lascano (WJ), Joseph ("Fontanero Mayor" term (AO), Pedro Fernandez Pedro Lascano (WJ) Merino de Heredia used 9.II.1690) Lascano (WJ), de Valdez Gaspar Perales y Saabedra 1691 Pedro Lascano Gaspar de Perales y Saavedra Gaspar de Perales (AO), Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Gaspar de Sevastian Centeno de Valdez (AO), Antonio de Aguirre (AO), Pedro Lascano Centeno de Perales y Hurtado de Pedro Lascano Centeno de Valdez Valdez (WJ), Joseph Merino Saavedra (AO), Mendoza (WJ) Antonio de Aguirre (AO), Pedro Lascano Centeno de Valdez (WJ)

307 1692 Pedro de Hazaña Juan de la Cueva (AO), Pedro Juan de la Cueva y Mendoza Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Juan de la Cueva Sevastian Solis y Palacio Balthasar Merino de Heredia (AO), Pedro de Haxaña Solis (AO), Pedro Hurtado de (AO), Pedro de Hazaña Solis y y Palacio (WJ), Joseph Balthasar Merino Mendoza Palacio (WJ), Pedro Lascano Merino de Heredia de Heredia (AO), Centeno de Valdez Pedro de Hazaña Solis y Palacio (WJ), Pedro Lascano Centeno de Valdez 1693 Pedro de Hazaña Luis de Sotomayor Pimentel Luis de Sotomayor y Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Luis de Sevastian Solis y Palacio (AO), Martin de Zamudio (AO), Pimentel (AO), Pedro de Sotomayor Hurtado de Pedro de Hazaña Solis y Palacio Hazaña Solis y Palacio (WJ), Pimentel (AO), Mendoza Joseph Merino de Heredia Martin de Zamudio (AO), Pedro de Hazaña Solis y Palacio 1694 Pedro de Hazaña Gaspar de Perales y Saabedra Gaspar de Perales (AO), Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Gaspar de Sevastian Solis y Palacio (AO), Antonio de Aguirre (AO), Pedro Lascano (WJ), Joseph Perales y Hurtado de Pedro de Hazaña Solis y Palacio, Merino Saabedra (AO), Mendoza Antonio de Aguirre (AO), Pedro de Hazaña Solis y Palacio, 1695 Martin de Samudio Luis de Sandobal y Gusman Francisco de Zavala Billela y Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Luis de Sandobal Sevastian y de las Infantas (AO), Francisco de Zavala Billela de la Massa (AO), Martin de y Gusman (AO), Hurtado de y de la Massa (AO), Martin de Samudio y de las Infantas Francisco de Mendoza/ Samudio y de las Infantas, Pedro (WJ), Sebastian Palomino Zavala Billela y Nicolas Lascano Centeno de Valdez de la Massa Davalos (AO), Martin de Samudio y de las Infantas

308 1696 Diego Manrrique de Juan Saenz Cascante (AO), Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Juan Saenz Nicolas Lara Estebán de Urrutia Oyanguren Cascante (AO), Davalos y (AO), Diego Manrique de Lara Esteban de Ribera (WJ) Urrutia Oyanguren (AO), Diego Manrrique de Lara (WJ) 1697 Pedro Lascano Pedro de Villagomez Larraspuru Pedro Lascano Zenteno de Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Pedro de Andres Centeno de Valdez (AO), Manuel Francisco Lerque Valdez, Joseph Merino Villagomez Marquez (AO), Pedro Lascano Zenteno de Larraspuru (AO), Valdez (WJ) Manuel Francisco Lerque (AO), Pedro Lascano Zenteno de Valdez (WJ) 1698 Gaspar de Perales y Lucas de Vergara y Pardo, Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Lucas de Andres Saabedra Nicolas de Mansilla y (?) Vergara y Pardo, Marquez Villavicencio, Gaspar de Perales y Pedro de Vallexo Saavedra (WJ) 1699 Gaspar de Perales y Lucas de Vergara y Pardo, Pedro Fernandez de Valdez Nicolas de Andres Saabedra Nicolas de Mansilla y Mansilla y Marquez Villavicencio, Gaspar de Perales y Villaviencio, Saavedra (WJ) Sebastian Palomino Ren (AO)

309 Appendix D Petitions and concessions of drinking water rights for individuals, groups, religious orders, and other institutions included in the LCL (1588- 1699). Details for each petition include who made the petition and for what kind of water right/connection. This includes the quantity of water requested, the location of the proposed connection to the municipal pipeline system, and the specific pipeline to be used. It also includes the amount of water requested and awarded, and the terms, costs, and conditions of each license or title to water. All dates relevant to a petition/water connection are listed. Dates written as day.month(Roman Numeral).year.

Units of water are the "paja" and the "real," and fractions thereof. Defintions and discusions of these terms are found in Chapter 3. Petitions are mainly for pajas or reales of water, although special petitions were sometimes made by individuals or groups to construct new pipelines, build public fountains, or renew/extend/transfer a title. Translating names of places and institutions is always challenging. All locations descriptions are from the LCL unless otherwise noted. The words "convent" and "monsastery" are translated as they were used in the LCL ("convento"/"monasterio"), regardless of the more common convention in English of female nuns in convents and male monks in monasteries. Some relgious orders and institutions are translated when a common English name exists, others are left in the original Spanish. Biographical details of people making petitions are included when relevant (indicating their titles), and it is noted if the individual was an Alcalde Ordinario (AO), Water Judge (WJ), or Pipeline Commissioner.

ID Date(s) of Petition By Petition For Petition Pipeline Location Cost Conditions # Petition Awarded? 1 15.II.1588 Santo Domingo 4 pajas Yes 1 Santo Domingo Convent n/a Will not take Convent, by Fray water from the Reginaldo de Lizarraga public fountain (Prior) 2 4.XI.1588, Doña Jordana Mejia
paja Yes 1 400 pesos 11.XI.1588 (widow of Melchor ("cuartillo") Verdugo) 3 20.IX.1591 San Francisco Convent Quantity not Yes 1 San Francisco Convent n/a specified

310 4 24.IX.1593 (?) Diego Nuñez de 1 paja Yes 2 The pipeline passing his Free, in 15.X.1593 Figueroa (Vecino and house recognition of Regidor; WJ in 1605) his work in installing the pipeline system 5 6.V.1594 Doña Maria Fajardo de 1 paja Yes 2 Her house 400 pesos Billaroel (wife of Diego Nuñez de Campoberde, who was nephew of Diego Nuñez de Figueroa, Regidor) 6 1.VII.1594 San Marcelo (Church) Water, public Yes 3 To the San Marcelo Public works fountain neighborhood via Martin project by de Ampuero's street Cabildo 7 1.VII.1594 San Martin College
real 1 paja 2 San Martin College n/a (see also later (Jesuit), by padre Pablo petition, #11 Josepe (rector) 18.XI.1594 8 12.VIII. 1594, Dr. Diego de Salinas 1 paja Yes 2 From the pipe that goes 400 pesos Preference to be 29.XI.1596 to San Agustin given to the public fountains

9 9.IX.1594 Antonio Xuarez de 1 paja Yes 2 His house, from the n/a Medina reservoir next to the Jesuits 10 4.XI.1594 Holy Spirit Hospital, by 1 paja Yes,
paja 2 (?) Holy Spirit Hospital Free To the hospital for Antonio Fernandez, awarded service to the poor (majordomo) 11 18.XI.1594 Jesuits 2 reales (in Yes, 1
2 Inside the Jesuit college n/a "Without (see also prior addition to reales property"; petition, #7 what they awarded preference to be 1.VII.1594 already have) given to the public fountains 12 9.XII.1594 Licenciado Juan 1 real Yes 2 Next to his house n/a "Without Martinez Rengifo property"

311 13 23.XII. 1594, San Agustin Convent 2 reales Yes, 1
2 n/a "Without 28.II.1622 reales property"; awarded preference to be given to the public fountains 14 16.II.1595 San Francisco Convent 1 real Yes 1 From the reservoir of the n/a "Without fountain of the Santo property"; Oficio Plaza preference to be given to the public fountains 15 14.4.1595 Antonio de Abalos
paja Yes 1 From the reservoir of the 100 pesos fountain of the Inquisition Plaza 16 22.IX.1595 San Sebastian (Church) Extend the Yes 2 San Sebastian Plaza Charged to the pipe to city, public church works project fountain 18 19.I.1598 Albaro de Alcoçer
paja ? 200 pesos 19 8.V.1598 La Merced Monastery 3 reales Yes 3 From the reservoir at the Free corner of the monastery 20 8.VI.1598, Dr. Hormero
paja Yes 1 ? 150 pesos 3.VII.1598, 5.IV.1599, 20.XI.1634 22 6.XII.1599 Casa de San Jose 1 real Yes,
real 2 (?) From the pipeline that n/a "Without (Jesuit), by Fray awarded passes in front of the property" only for Francisco de Vitoria house the length of time (Rector) the city decrees 23 6.III.1600, Miguel de Solsona
paja Yes 3 His house 500 pesos 3.VII.1600 (merchant?) 24 14.VIII.1600 Juan Dabalos de Ribera 1 paja Yes 3 (?) His house (AO) 25 22.XII.1600, Convent of the Nuns of Renew the si 3 From the reservoir next n/a 22.XI.1602 the Holy Trinity, by water license to San Marcelo Doña Lucreçia de Sansoles (Abbess)

312 26 1.VI.1601 Cathedral, by Joan de 1 paja n/a 1 Cathedral n/a Palomares (majordomo of construction of the Church) 27 25.I.1602 Cathedral 1 paja (to Yes 1 From the reservoir in the n/a make 2 total) house that belonged to Gregorio Ortiz de Arbildo 28 19.IV.1602 Don Diego de Carvajal 1 paja Yes 1 From the reservoir near n/a (son of Alcalde his house Ordinario) 29 4.XI.1602, Martin de Ampuero (WJ 1 paja Yes 3 From the reservoir of 100 pesos 1.VIII. 1603, in 1610) Miguel de Solsona 8.VIII.1603, 6.X.1603 30 18.11.1602 Dr. Andres Diaz de 1 paja Yes 3 From the reservoir near 450 pesos Abrego the Encarnacion Church 31 20.VI.1602 Diego de la Presa 1 paja Yes 3 From the reservoir near 250 pesos (Pipeline Commissioner the Marmol de Carbajal 1608) 33 14.XI.1603, Don Juan Manuel de 1 paja Yes 2 From the reservoir near 100 pesos Without drainage 8.IV.1604 Anaya the wall of Don Juan Gutierrez Flores 34 8.III.1604, Don Fernando de 1 paja Yes 1 From the reservoir of 100 pesos 8.IV.1604 Cordoba y Figueroa Diego de Carvajal (Pipeline Commissioner 1609) 35 8.IV.1604 Don Francisco de 1 paja Yes Santa Ana (?) His houses in the Santa 100 pesos Balençuela Loaysa Ana Plazuela 36 1.10.1604 Dr. Cipriano de Medina 1 paja Yes,
paja 1 From the reservoir next Water is not to awarded to his house run freely and there is no drainage. The spigot is to be closed when not used.

313 37 1.21.1605 San Marcelo Build a public Yes 3 San Marcelo Public work to (neighborhood residents) fountain be paid for with a sisa tax 38 25.I.1605 Marmol de Caruajal and Build two Yes 3 One fountain at the Public work to San Marcelo public corner of the Marmol de be paid for fountains Caruajal and the other in with a sisa tax San Marcelo 39 3.VI.1605 San Pedro neighborhood Build a public Yes (?) ? San Pedro Public work fountain 40 8.II.1608, Santa Ana Build a public Yes Santa Ana New pipeline to Santa Public work to 30.III.1623 (neighborhood residents) fountain Ana be paid for jointly by the Cabildo and the neighborhood residents 41 24.X.1608 Licenciado Pedro
paja Yes 1 From the Pipeline that n/a Gonzalez de las Quentas goes from Santo Domingo to the Reservoir next to the Jail. 42 9.V.1609 Caridad: Hermandad, 1 paja Yes 1 From the reservoir next n/a Pipeline House, and Hospital, by to the house commissioners Miguel Ochoa are to be present (majordomo) when installing the data 43 6.VII.1609 Juan Fernandez de
paja Yes 3 From the reservoir at the 200 pesos Heredia (later transferred Marmol of Carabajal to Dr. Juan de Solorzano Pereira, #49) 44 15.I.1610, Capitan Don Diego de
paja Yes 3 From the pipe that come 100 pesos 29.XI.1610 Ayala from the Holy Trinity Convent to San Marcelo

314 45 26.I.1610, Seminary College, by
paja Yes 1 From the pipe in the n/a 11.V.1611, Hernando de Guzman Inquisition street 19.V.1611, 16.V.1611 47 26.XI.1610, Noviciado de la 1 paja Yes 3 From the pipes that run Free 29.X.1612, Compañia de Jesus to the reservoir at the 23.VII.1614, (Jesuit), by Hermano Encarnacion Monastery 24.VII.1614, Eujenio Sanchez 20.IV.1668 48 29.II.1610, Alonso de Carrion 1 paja Yes 3 From the reservoir next n/a 13.XII.1612 to the San Marcelo Church 49 2.III.1612, Dr. Juan de Solorzano
paja Yes 3 His house, from the 200 pesos 12.III.1612, Pereira (transferred from reservoir near the 3.VI.1619 Don Gonzalo de Marmol de Carbajal Heredia, #43) 51 23.X1615 Francisco Çeberino de 1 paja Yes 3 From the reservoir near n/a Without harming Torres (Pipeline the Marmol de Carbajal third parties Commissioner 1614) 53 23.VI.1617 Don Juan de la Cueva y 1 paja Yes 2 (?) Houses in the street of 250 pesos Without harming Villabiçençio (Pipeline the Concepcion Convent third parties or Commissioner 1616) public fountains 54 11.I.1619 San Agustin convent, by 4 reales of Yes San Agustin San Agustin convent The convent Cabildo provides 23.XII.1594 Fray Francisco de la water from a Pipeline (new pipeline to be asks for the instructions for (original title Serna and Fray Pedro de private constructed from La water as a pipeline for 1.5 reales) la Rua pipeline Caridad Reservoir to the donation, but construction, 28.II.1622 (petition also San Sebastian will pay for includeing that the 4.VIII.1622 for neighborhood) the pipeine "data" be made of 6.III.1622 construction construction bronze. The 6.VI.1622 of pipeline) itself. "data" sized for 6 31.VIII.1629 reales of water, 4 14.IX.1629 for San Agustin 11.III.1630 and 2 for the two 19.IV.1630 San Sebastian public fountains that will be built.

315 58 29.XI.1624 Cathedral, by Dr. Renovation n/a 1 n/a Feliçiano de Bega of license for (Canon of the Holy
paja Church) (original 1604) 59 11.XII.1624, Santa Clara Convent Water 8 pajas New private From the main reservoir Free, as a Must inform the 30.XII.1624, (unspecified) awarded pipeline? (Atarjea), because the donation Cabildo of its 11.VII.1625 convent is located construction "above' the Caridad projects reservoir. 62 17.III.1625 San Pablo College, Alter the Yes 2 San Pablo College, near the College Must inform the 18.XI.1594 (Jesuit) course of a the reservoir for Pipeline will pay all Cabildo of its (original title pipeline, #2, the new connection costs construction for water), install a new has to be underground. projects. The 11.VII.1625, storage tank. "data" has to be 14.VII.1625 bronze. 15.XII.1625
real in Prohibited to take (petition for addition to more water than additional the 1
reales license allows. water) already 5.VII.1627 awarded 19.IV.1630 (1625) (petition for additional water--see below #67), 29.IV.1630 66 26.IX.1627 Don Alonso Cataño de Illegal water Cabildo His house n/a Aragon connection orders Cataño to show his license, otherwise it will cut his water

316 67 19.IV1630 San Pablo College 4 reales in Yes San Pablo San Pablo College the College All the water in 29.IV.1630 (Jesuit) addition to Pipeline will pay all the new pipeline (additional the 2 reales costs will be for the dates for already College of San related petition awarded in Pablo (Jesuit see above #62) 1625 property) 68 30.IX.1630 San Martin College 2 reales Yes San Pablo From the new San Pablo n/a All the water in (Jesuit) by Father Pipeline College Pipeline, from the new pipeline Bartolome Tafur (rector) the storage tank in front will be for the of the houses of don College of San Françisco Gutierrez Martin (Jesuit Flores property) 69 8.VII.1631 Francisco Gutierrez de Water Yes 2 The street that runs from n/a "Data" should be Coca (unspecified) the Catheral to the bronze and Jesuits locked. 70 13.IX.1633 Recoleta Church Public Yes, two 3 Part to be paid neighborhood, by Fray Fountain fountains (Encarnacion by the Blas de Acosta and will be built: branch) Recoleta Recoleta neighborhood one in San residents, part residents Diego Plaza, by the the other Cabildo's rents next to the and properties. Recoleta

71 24.IV.1634 Diego Lopez de Lisboa
paja Yes 2 His house, where his 250 pesos Pipeline 5.V.1634 grandchildren live. Next commissioners to the Jesuit chruch and must be present across from the Jesuit when "Data" is "Estudio", from the installed. reservoir in "la ysleta" of the Jesuits. *the license provokes some controversy within the Cabildo. 72 10.XI.1634 San Diego Hospital, by 1 paja Yes 3 Pipeline that goes from Free, as a To consult with

317 Fray Juan de Graçia (Encarnacion the Caridad reservoir to donation the wife of (Prior of San Diego branch) Encarnacion Church and Gregorio de convent) the Merced Plaza Ybarra, as the fountain most interested party. Obligated to provide a public fountain in the San Diego neighborhood or the Recoleta de Santo Domingo neighborhood. 73 20.XI.1634 Doña Maria Hurtado de
paja n/a 1 ? n/a (see also Hormero (and Dr. 5.IV.1599) Hormero, her father) 78 27.VII.1643 Santa Ana neighborhood Public Referred to Santa Ana Santa Ana Plaza n/a residents Fountain Thomas de Pipeline Avendaño (Pipeline Comm- issioner) 79 6.XI.1643 Dr. Don Juan de Cabrera
paja Yes 2 His house, on the same 200 pesos 14.XI.1643 street as Diego Lopez de Lisboa 81 13.XI.1645 College of the Holy 4 pajas 2 pajas ? From the reservoir near n/a Trinity (Dominican), by awarded the Santa Clara Convent Fray Francisco Fernandes 82 25.V.1646 Nuns of the Santa 4 pajas Yes ? Santa Catalina n/a Catalina Monastery Monastery 83 20.VII.1646 Don Francisco de
paja Yes 1 From the reservoir near n/a License for his Carbajal the public jail lifetime only, with a spigot that can be shut off when not in use

318 87 29.XII.1653 Captain Don Francisco 1 paja Yes 3? From the storage tank in n/a de la Cueva Guzman Dr. Don Sebastian de (Alcalde Ordinario, Alarcon's houses, whih Pipeline Commisioner in are next to the houses of 1653) the Government Secretary, on the lefthand side going from the Main Plaza toward the Encarnacion monastery. 88 29.XII.1653 Juan de Figueroa 1 paja Yes 3? From the storage tank in n/a (Pipeline Commisioner Dr. Don Sebastian de in 1654) Alarcon's houses, whih are next to the houses of the Government Secretary, on the lefthand side going from the Main Plaza toward the Encarnacion monastery. 89 24.VII.1654 Hordoño de Samudio 1 paja
paja ? His house, on Amargura n/a (Pipeline Commissioner awarded street (currently block #9 for many years) of Camana, see Bromley and Barbagelata 1954). 90 6.XI.1654 Monastery of the 1 paja
paja Private Above Caridad Free, as a 13.XI.1654 Recoleta Descalza Nuns awarded Pipeline Reservoir, from the donation, but of Our Lady of Prado, by Reservoir of the Cercado Monastery Angela de la pays cost of Encarnacion (Abess) installation 91 13.XI.1654 Captain Don Pedro de 1 paja
paja 1 From the pipeline that n/a Castro Ysasaga (Pipeline awarded goes from the old Commisioner in 1654) fountain in the Main Plaza 92 30.IV.1655 Captain Don Fernando Private Yes Private From the reservoir that is n/a de Castilla Altamirano Pipeline to Pipeline on the street where Don (Pipeline Commisioner bring the
de Carvajal lives.

319 in 1642) paja of water already awarded to him 93 4.IV.1657 Nuns of the Concepcion Private Yes Private From the pipeline from 500 pesos Pipeline with Pipeline the reservoir where they donated 1 paja had already been given water (not very specific). 95 14.IX.1657 San Lazaro Hospital, by 1 paja Yes On San From the reservoir of the Free Captain Luis Martines Lazaro side Alameda, and the canal Miñis and Juan Garcia of the river of Pedro del Castillo's Chico (Majordomo fo (different mill the hospital) springs) 96 14.IX.1660 Hospital de San 1 paja Yes Descalzas From the reservoir at the n/a Must install a Bartolome Pipeline, corner of the Descalzas public fountain in monastery (San Joseph), the street "above" the Caridad Reservoir 97 7.V.1666 "La Enfermeria" of the Water for a Referred to 2 Water to be taken from n/a San Agustin Convent fountain the pipeline public fountain commi- ssioners 98 7.V.1666 Captain Francisco de 1 paja
paja Above the House on the same street Free, with with permission Haro (Pipeline awarded Caridad as Santa Clara, one block permission from the Commisioner 1665) Reservoir above the San Pedro from the San Augustinians hospital. Where the Agustin pipeline to the College of Convent San Illefonso (Augustinian) passes. 99 5.VIII.1667 San Pedro Hospital, by 1 real Yes San Francisco From the "Data" for the Free, as a 27.II.1668 Joseph Nuñez Pipeline San Francisco Pipeline, donation (Majordomo of the that passes in front of the Hospital) San Pedro Hospital

320 100 17.IX.1667 Don Bernardo de 1 paja Yes 3 From the last reservoir n/a Yturricarra (Judge of the along the pipeline where Real Audiencia, water is divided for the President of the Real Encarnacion Monastery Audiencia, Governor and and the San Juan de Dios General Captain of Peru Convent in the absence of the Viceroy) 101 13.I.1668 Don Nicolas Fernando water Yes 2 From the drainage of the n/a de Villavicencio (unspecified) fountain in Doña (Pipeline Commissioner Catalina de la Cueba's 1657) house. 102 29.II.1668 Don Gabriel de Vega y 1 paja Yes New San From the new pipeline n/a Rinaga (Pipeline Marcelo that is going to be Commissioner 1658) Pipeline constructed for a public fountain in the San Marcelo plaza. The pipeline will pass de Vega y Rinaga's house. 103 20.IV.1668 Noviciado (Jesuits), by Renewal of Yes New San From the new pipeline n/a Must install a 16.XI.1610 Father Ignacio de la License for 1 Marcelo going to San Marcelo public fountain in (original title, Roelas (rector), and the Paja (original Pipeline (not the Encarnacion the street see #47), residents of the license 1610), Branch) for the Guadalupe 20.VII.1668, neighborhoods of the
paja in nieghborhood. 30.VII.1668, Noviciado and addition, so Guadalupe 1
pajas total. 105 30.VII.1668 La Casa de las 1 paja Yes Caridad Above the Caridad donation Recogidas pipeline (old) reservoir 106 31.VIII.1668 La Recoleta water Yes ? From the drainage of the Must install a (unspecified) main convent (Recoleta), public fountain in a new pipeline will be the street installed. 107 18.IX.1668 Santo Domingo Convent 2 pajas Yes Santo From the Caridad n/a Domingo Reservoir Pipeline

321 (new)

108 2.X.1668 Captain Don Geronimo water To be n/a n/a n/a de los Rios (unspecified) determined

109 15.I.1669 Orphan Girls College, by 1 paja Yes New San From the new pipeline n/a License for Don Diego Laurencio de Marcelo that passes the door of fountain without Valencuela Pipeline the college on its way to drainage. With a (Administrator) the Jesuit Noviciado spigot that can be shut off when not in use. 111 27.II.1670, Jesuit Offices (Estudios), 1 paja Referred to 3 From the "data" of the n/a 6.III.1670 by Father Rodrigo de Pipeline Recogidas Reservoir, Baldes Commi- which will now take ssioners more water from the Caridad Reservoir, using the old pipelines. 112 17.V.1670 Doña Ana Zolorzano y 1 paja Yes Santo Houses around the n/a Belasco Domingo corner from the San Pipeline Francisco Convent's (new) orchard, on the street of the Santa Clara convent. From the water going to the Caridad Hospital, through the Santo Domingo pipeline. 113 23.IX.1670 Don Martin de Savala de 1 paja Two
pajas The first
From the main pipeline, n/a la Masa (Alcalde are awarded paja from the that passes the back Ordinario 1670) Amparadas corner of his house (
Pipeline, the paja), From the Pipeline second
that goes to the pjaa from Amparadas House (
Pipeline 3 (?) paja)

322 119 2.XII.1672 Manuel de la Vega Water Referred to San Andrés From the drainage of the n/a (unspecified) Pipeline Pipeline fountain in the kitchen of Commi- the San Andrés Hospital sioners 120 18.VIII.1673 Don Manuel Artero de  paja Yes ? From the reservoir near n/a Loaysa ("medio his house cuartillo") 122 4.IX.1676 Juan Bermudo de la
paja Yes ? From the reservoir near n/a 3.XI.1676 Vega the door of the house of Don Manuel Artero de Loaysa (See above, #120). 125 20.XII.1680 General Don Juan de 1 paja Yes 1 His houses at the n/a Urdanegui Inquisition Plaza 126 15.IV.1681 Don Lorenzo de Zarate
paja Yes 1 No detail in LCL, but on Free, for his Verdugo 18th Century map merits and "Plan[o] Topografico" services 127 27.I.1682 Concepcion Monastery, Renew prior Yes Concepcion From the pipeline that Free, for its by Doña Eufemia de grant of 1 Pipeline passes the Concepcion service and for Luna paja Monastery Doña Eufemia de Luna's father and grandparents 128 23.IX.1687 Santa Rosa Church, by Water for the Yes ? A pipeline going in the n/a Must install a 19.IX.1697 Fray Ignacio el Campo Church direction of San public fountain in Sebastian, but no detail San Sebastian neighborhood 129 22.X.1688 Don Francisco Bermejo Fountain Yes 3 His house, on the same n/a without street as the Jesuits. drainage Water from the pipelin that passes his door. 130 7.X.1689 San Pedro Nolasco 1 paja Yes San Pedro San Pedro Nolasco n/a Must install a College, by Fray Josephe Nolasco College public fountain in Barraza Pipeline the street, with drainage

323 131 7.X.1689 Captain Don Juan de la "data" for his Yes 3 (probable) His house, near the n/a Pedro Fernandez Preza house Marmol de Carvajal de Valdez (fontanero mayor) must install the data 132 9.II.1690 Doña Mariana Zapata  paja Yes 3 Her house, in front of the Free, for the (widow of Don Antonio main door of the services of de Llano) Encarnacion Monastery Doña Mariana, her husband, and their family 133 12.IX.1690 Nuns of the Descalsas of 1 paja
paja Above the Above the Caridad n/a 19.IX.1690 the Holy Trinity awarded Caridad Reservoir, at the Monastery Descalsas Monastery 135 17.VII.1691 Doña Theresa de Vilela
paja Yes 2 From the pipeline that n/a 29.V.1695 y Esquivel (widow of passes her house, across 29.VII.1695 Don Martin de Savala) the street from the Concepcion Monastery 136 12.II.1692 Don Fernando Nuñes de
paja  paja 3 From the "public" n/a The fountain must Sanabria awarded pipeline that goes to San have a spigot that ("cuartillo") Marcelo can be shut off when not in use 137 12.II.1692 Don Pedro Balthasar
paja  paja ? From the pipeline that n/a The fountain must Merino de Heredia (AO) awarded flows out of the house have a spigot that ("cuartillo") next to ("acesoria a") can be shut off that of Don Manuel when not in use Artero de Loassa and flows into that of Don Antonio Samudio 138 2.V.1692 Captain Don Bernardo  paja  paja 3 His house on the street n/a fountain without de Gurmendi ("cuartillo") awarded that goes from La drainage ("medio Merced to San Juan de cuartillo") Dios, from one of the pipelines that goes to San Marcelo

324 139 19.VIII.1694 Pedro Fernandes de  paja Yes Desclazas His house,, from the Free, in Valdez (Fontanero ("cuartillo") Pipeline, Pipeline that goes to the recognition of Mayor) Above San Bartolome Hospital his 40 years of Caridad service Reservior 141 22.II.1695 Incurables Hospital, by
paja Yes Merced From the Pipeline that n/a Governor Don Domingo Pipeline, goes to the "Beaterio de Cueto (Hospital Above la Merced" administrator) Caridad Reservoir 143 2.I.1697 Don Gaspar Perales 1 paja n/a n/a n/a n/a 145 19.IX.1699 Santa Rosa Convent, by
paja Yes San Agustin The San Agustin n/a (see also Ana Maria de Santo Pipeline Pipeline needs to be previous Domingo (prioress) extended, at the same petition: time it could also 23.IX.1687) extended to the San Sebastian neighborhood. 146 19.IX.1699 Guadalupe College Water for a Yes New San To be taken from the n/a To make a second (see also public Marcelo water flowing out of the fountain. 12.II.1669) fountain Pipeline Noviciado (Jesuit). A second fountain to be made with water flowing out of the College of the Orphans (Huerfanas)

325 Appendix E Trips by Cabildo representatives to buy or inspect wheat listed in the Libros de Cabildos de Lima (1549-1700). Details including relevant dates, events, locations, individuals, length of trip, as well as salary and payment are listed below. These trips are described and mapped in Chapter 4. Abbreviations include: Alcalde Ordinario (AO) (Mayors), Regidor (R) (Councilman), Alhóndiga Commissioner (CA), days (d), pesos (p). Dates written as day.month(Roman Numeral).year.

Date(s) Event Location Cabildo Length of Salary Payment Representative Trip 25.VI.1549 Ordinance requiring ship captains from n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Callao to travel to ports where wheat and maize are available and bring grain back. 3.VII.1551 Cabildo allows Indians to be contracted as n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a day laborers, to bring wheat, maize, and other goods to the city. 12.IX.1561 Cabildo sends Regidor to buy wheat and n/a Ruiz Destrada 60 d n/a n/a ship it to Callao. 9.III.1562 Cabildo sends Regidor to buy wheat and Cañete Geronimo de Zurbano n/a n/a up to 3000p 22.VI.1562 maize and ship it to Callao. (Founder of town of from city 31.VIII.1562 Cañete and landowner funds for grain there) purchases 5.VII.1575 Wheat shortages. Cabildo representative Chancay, Huaura, Joan Barba (son of 30 days 3 p/d and 1 p/d for n/a 8.VIII.1575 sent to report on wheat available in Barranca, Huarmey, Ruy Barba) a scribe (Total: 30.IX.1575 regional valleys (harvested and Supe (Valleys between 90p, 30p for unharvested). Trip extended in August, Lima and Trujillo) scribe) completed and salary approved in September. 29.VII.1575 Wheat is expensive and in short supply. Valleys between Lima Antonio Nabarro (AO) 50 days 6 p/d (Total 300p) salary paid 2.IX.1575 Cabildo sends Alcalde Ordinario to buy and Huarmey from 11.XI.1575 wheat in surrounding valleys and send it to Alhóndiga the alhóndiga. Trip extended in September, funds or from completed and salary approved in city rents and November. properties

326 11.V.1576 Wheat shortages. Regidor sent to check Tambos of the city and Martin de Ampuero. n/a 6 p/d (Total 150p) n/a 18.V.1576 Tambos for wheat. Trip completed and "below," in Huaura and Replaced by Alonso 23.VII.1576 salary approved in September. other parts de Aliaga. 7.IX/1576 26.IX.1578 Cabildo representative sent to prohibit Valleys of Huaura, Garçi Barva Cabeça de 50d 6p/d and 1p/d for Up to 2000p 3.X.1578 wheat export, and to buy wheat and ship it Chancay, Barranca Vaca (AO, CA) scribe (Total for purchase of 10.X.1578 to Callao. Some wheat arrives in October. 300p, 50p for grain. Salary 28.XI.1578 Trip extended in late October. Salary paid scribe) paid from 12.XII.1578 in December. Alhóndiga funds and city rents and properties 10.VII.1579 Regidor trip to buy wheat. At least 1000 Valleys of Huaura, Simon Luis de Luzio 30d 4 p/d and 2p/d n/a 13.VII.1579 fanegas of wheat purchased by August. Chancay, Barranca each for scribe 7.VIII.1579 Salary paid June of subsequent year. and inspector 17.VI.1580 11.VIII.1579 Alcalde Ordinario sent to buy wheat and Valley of Lima (fields Melchior Cadalso n/a n/a n/a send it to the Alhóndiga. surrounding city) Salazar (AO, CA) 17.VI.1580 Cabildo sends Alcalde Ordinario to buy Valleys of Huaura, Juan de Cadalso n/a n/a n/a wheat. Chancay, Barranca Salazar (AO, CA) 4.XI.1580 Regidor sent to buy wheat, ordered to have Valley of Lima (fields Juan de Barrios n/a n/a n/a it threshed if necessary. surrounding city) 17.IV.1581 Viceroy, in consultation with Cabildo, Valleys of Huaura, Josepe de Ribera 30d for 6p/d and 2.5p/d Payment from 26.V.1582 sends Alcalde Ordinario to buy wheat in Chancay, Barranca (AO). Replaced by Luzio for scribe and Alhóndiga 13.VII.1582 order to forestall coming wheat shortage. Simon Luis de Luzio inspector (raised funds or from 16.VII.1582 Alcalde Ordinario replaced by Regidor in (16.VII.1582) to 8p/d on 13.VII. city rents and 17.VIII.1582 July, extension granted in August, some of 1582) (Ribera's properties purchased wheat arrives to Callao in salary); 6 p/d and August. 3p/d each for scribe and inspector (Luzio's salary) 2.VII.1582 Cabildo orders that all the wheat in Lima's Valley of Lima (fields Garçi Perez de Salinas n/a n/a n/a valleys be brought to the Alhóndiga, surrounding city) (AO) Alcalde Ordinario put in charge.

327 14.I.1583 Wheat and maize shortages, and predicted Valleys of Huaura, Rui Barva and his son 30d 4p/d and 2p/d Payment from 4.II.1583 further shortages. Cabildo sends Chancay, Barranca Garçi Barva each for scribe Alhóndiga 11.II.1583 representative to buy up to 6000 fanegas of and inspector funds wheat and a quantity of maize. 23.VIII.1583 Wheat shortages. Cabildo sends Valleys of Huaura, Joan de Cadalso n/a no salary except n/a representative to buy wheat. Chancay, Barranca Salazar for scribe and alguazil 8.VII.1586 Viceroy asks Cabildo to send Valleys from Chancay Sancho de Ribera 30d 6p/d and 2p/d n/a representative to buy wheat. to Huarmey each for scribe and inspector 14.VII.1586 Wheat prices to rise because of earthquake Valley of Lima (fields n/a n/a n/a n/a (9.VIII.1586). Viceroy orders that the surrounding city) Indians who are sent to work in the fields be used for wheat cultivation, and that farmers who received Indians be required to send wheat to Alhóndiga and only keep what they need for themselves and seed. 14.VII.1586 Cabildo sends representative to find out Valley of Lima (fields Luis Rodriguez de la n/a 6p/d and 3p/d Payment from how much wheat is in the Valley of Lima. surrounding city) Serna each for scribe Alhóndiga and inspector funds. 25.II.1587 Cabildo discusses 15,000p for buying Valleys of Huaura, Luis Rodriguez de la n/a n/a n/a wheat, maize and other grains. Alhóndiga Chancay, Barranca, Serna (CA), Diego officials put in charge. Trujillo, Cañete Nuñez de Figueroa (CA) 25.II.1587 Cabildo selects representative to buy Valleys of Chancay, Pedro de los Rios 4p/d 100d Payment from 9.III.1587 wheat. By May 1000 fanegas of wheat Huaura, Barranca, Alhóndiga 13.V.1587 have been purchased in Santa, and are Huarmey, Santa, funds. 19.VI.1587 ready to ship to the Alhóndiga. Ship Trujillo 22.I.1588 requested for June. Accounts settled in Jan 1588. 9.III.1587 Cabildo sends representative to Cañete to Cañete Luis Rodriguez de la n/a n/a n/a 25.IX.1587 buy wheat and maize. Accounts requested Serna (CA), Diego in September. Nuñez de Figueroa (CA)

328 25.IX.1587 Juan de Cadalsso bought 1000 fanegas of n/a Juan de Cadalsso n/a n/a n/a wheat to deliver in October, Cabildo discusses. 25.IX.1587 Cabildo discusses how it could bring 1000 Jauja Luis Rodriguez de la n/a n/a n/a fanegas of maize from Jauja to Lima, to be Serna (CA), Diego sold from the Alhóndiga. Nuñez de Figueroa (CA) 26.X.1587 Cabildo discussion of frequency of trips to Callao Cabildo n/a n/a n/a get wheat due to Lima's growing population. Discusses the necessity of having storehouses in Callao. 7.V.1590 Cabildo authorizes use of Indians from Huaura, Recuay Cabildo, Corregidor of n/a n/a n/a Recuay in wheat fields in Huaura. Huaura Huaura is required to send 8000 fanegas of wheat to Lima each year. 15.VI.1590 Cabildo sends representative to buy wheat. Valleys of Santa, Pedro de Santillan n/a n/a n/a Trujillo, Lima 15.VI.1590 Cabildo sends representative to hold 1000 Santa Felis Rodriguez n/a 3p/d n/a fanegas of wheat in Santa, and ship it Callao. 22.VII.1590 Alcalde Ordinario wants to send someone Santa Francisco de Ampuero 40d n/a n/a to Santa to get the 3000 fanegas of flour said to be there. Cabildo to ask Viceroy for funds. 22.VII.1590 At Viceroy's order, Cabildo sends Cañete Juan de la Plaça 22d 4p/d n/a representative to buy wheat. 22.VII.1590 Cabildo removes price control on wheat. Cañete and "above", n/a n/a n/a n/a Whoever brings wheat to the city can sell Santa and "below", at any price. Jauja 22.VII.1590 Cabildo asks Viceroy for permission for Chancay Garçi Barva n/a n/a n/a 21.VIII.1590 Garçi Barva to send maize to the city. Wheat purchased and ready for shipment by August.

329 28.VII.1590 Cabildo sends representative to buy wheat. Santa, Cherrepe Martin de Ampuero 21 d 2 p/d each for 200p lent by 21.VIII.1590 Some wheat purchased by August. Wheat (CA) / Alonso Alvarez (Alvarez) scribe and Luis de 5.X.1590 arriving to Callao in October received by de Olivera inspector. (42p Morales 11.X.1590 Alonso Alvarez de Olivera. Accounts to be total for Alvarez) Figueroa, still 22.X.1590 submitted to Cabildo mid-October. unpaid in 1592 1.XII.1590 16.XI.1592 12.IX.1590 Wheat shortages. Viceroy sends Cañete and its valleys, Simon Luis de Luzio 20d 2 p/d each for 2000p for 24.IX.1590 representative to buy wheat. Some wheat Chincha scribe and purchasing purchased by late September, trip inspector grain extended. 12.IX.1590 Cabildo decrees that anyone who wants to n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a bring wheat or maize to the city can do so without worrying about fines. 6.XI.1607 Wheat shortages. Cabildo sends Regidor to Valley of Lima (fields Gonzalo Prieto de 6p/d, 4p/d n/a Salary paid find wheat, and to make farmers harvest, surrounding city) Abreu for scribe, from Public clean, and bring it to the city. and 3p/d for Works funds Inspector 10.XI.1607 Wheat shortages. Cabildo decrees that n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a anyone who wants to bring wheat or maize to the city can do so without having to sell it at official price.

3.VII.1610 Cabildo sends various Regidores to inspect 1. City of Lima; 2. 1. Lope de Mendoça, 1. 3p/d each; 1. n/a; 2. 6d; 3. n/a wheat quality and quantity ("cala y cato") Valleys of Guachipa, Gabriel Tamayo de 2. 6p9r/d; 3. 6d; 4. 8d at several locations. Regidores are also to Ñanac, Surco; 3. Mendoça, Simon Luis 6 p/d and enforce new official wheat price of Valleys of Magdalena, de Luçio, Diego de la 3p/d each 4p/fanega. Guacta, Maranga, Presa, Françisco de for scribe Callao, Fields between Mansilla, Diego and Lima and Callao; 4. Nuñez de Figueroa; 2. inspector; 4. Valleys of Carabayllo, Martin de Ampuero; 3. 6 p/d and 3 Macas, Comas, Francisco de Leon; 4. p/d each for Lurigancho Gonzalo Prieto de scribe and Abreu inspector 9.VII.1610 Fernando Niño planning to travel to his Chancay, Huaura, Fernando Niño de encomienda to the north, offered to report Barranca Guzman

330 on wheat he inspects along the way.

9.VII.1610 Cabildo orders report on wheat available in Valleys of Chancay, Fernando Niño de n/a n/a n/a 24.IX.1610 valleys to the north. Huaura, Barranca, Guzman Pativilca 29.X.1610 Cabildo sends representative to inspect Valleys of Caravayllo, Gonzalo Prieto de n/a n/a n/a 12.XI.1610 wheat, have it cleaned, and enforce official Comas, Maras/Macas, Abreu price. Trip complete and salary requested Zapan by November. 1.III.1611 Wheat shortages. Viceroy orders Valley of Lima Gabriel Tamayo de n/a n/a n/a 8.IV.1611 inspection of wheat available in Valley of Mendoza Lima. Blames shortages on middlemen. Trip complete and salary requested by April (second request in July). 25.V.1618 Viceroy orders Cabildo to send Trujillo n/a n/a n/a n/a representative to Trujillo to get 6000 fanegas of wheat. Cabildo argues that the city does not have money for purchase, gives permission for anyone to go to Trujillo to buy wheat and ship it back. 4.V.1635 Cabildo sends representatives to check for 1. Valleys of Huaura, 1. Gonzalo Prieto de 11d n/a n/a middlemen. Barranca, and "valleys Abreu; 2. Juan below 2. Cañete and Sanchez de Leon Chincha 24.VII.1635 Wheat Shortages. Cabildo sends various 1. Callao; 2. Valleys of 1. Juan de Salinas; 2. 1. n/a; 2. 1. 6p/d and 3p/d Payment from 30.VII.1635 representatives to inspect wheat in several Lima from city's river Francisco Marques 15d each scribe and city rents and 22.VIII.1635 places. Report from Salinas received in to Carabayllo, Macas, Davila (replaced by inspector; 2. 6p/d properties 30.VIII.1635 August. Payment to Bermudes in August. and down coast to "la Juan Sanchez de each (90p total 3.IX.1635 Salinas recalled to Lima and requests his chacara alta de tanbo Leon); 3. Pedro each) 7.IX.1635 salary in September. ynga", then to Chancay Bermudes Huaura, Barranca, Pativilca, Guacta; 3. same as 2, but finally to "paraje de la cuesta de Chancay" instead of other valleys.

331 6.X.1642 Cabildo representatives sent to buy 4000 Carabayllo Joseph Delgadillo n/a 8p/d each Payment from fanegas of wheat. (AO), Diego de city rents and Campoberde properties 6.X.1642 Wheat shortages. Cabildo sends North to Valley of Fernando de Castilla, n/a n/a n/a representatives north to buy wheat. Pativilca and Chancay Diego de Campoberde 5.IX.1650 Ships sent to bring wheat from Northern Barranca, Huaura Viceroy to send ships, Valleys. corregidores to prepare wheat for shipment 5.IX.1650 Regidores sent to visit fields to prohibit 1. Late; 2. Magdalena, 1. Francisco Severino wheat must 6p/d for scribe Payment from farmers from hoarding wheat. Callao, Maranga, 3. de Torres; 2. Diego de be sent and 2p/d for city rents and Lurigancho, 4. Surco la Presa; 3. Diego within 8d inspector properties Berumudes; 4. Alonso (trip may be Sanches longer) 2.III.1651 Wheat shortages because harvests have not 1. Chincha, Cañete; 2. 1. Francisco Severino n/a 10p/d (including n/a yet begun. Cabildo sends representative to Chancay, Huaura de Torres; 2. Francisco 3p for paying neighboring valleys to compel farmers to Arze de Seviilla witnesses, no clean wheat at their own cost. The ships scribes) are being "lent." 2.IX.1651 Wheat shortages. Cabildo sends Valley of Lima (within Joseph Delgadillo within 2 n/a n/a 5.IX.1651 representative to inspect wheat and force 3 leagues) months owners to send it to sell it/send it to city 2.IX.1651 Wheat shortages. Cabildo asks the Viceroy Barranca, Pativilca, Viceroy to send ships, n/a n/a n/a to order the Corregidores and Tenientes in Huaura, Chancay, corregidores to the valleys north and south of the city to Chincha, Cañete, Mala, prepare wheat for send wheat to the city by ship. Pachacama shipment

30.IX.1651 Wheat shortages. Cabildo sends Callao Felipe de Espinossa y n/a n/a n/a representative to Callao to distribute wheat Mieses among bakers. 30.XII.1651 Wheat shortages. Cabildo sends Callao Melchor Malo de n/a n/a n/a representative to Callao to distribute wheat Molina, Josephe de los among bakers. Rios 12.I.1652 Cabildo sends regidores to various 1. Chancay and fields 1. Bartolome de 8d 8p/d (72p total) n/a locations to inspect wheat and to make of Melchor Gonçales, Hazaña; 2. Francisco sure that it is distributed equally among the Catalina Manrique, Campoverde and

332 bakers. Francisco de Aillon, Pedro Albarez de Bentura de Aliaga, Espinosa; 3. Mateo de Tomas de Avendaño; 2. Prolean and Juan Carabayllo; 3. Callao, Solano de Herrera; 4. Maranga, Magdalena; Alonso Sanches 4. Surco and Late Salbador and Alonso Lazo de la Vega 28.III.1669 Cabildo sends representatives to the Valley 1. Lima's Valley from 1. Juan Prieto de 1. 33d; 2-7, 1. 4 p/d (each); 2- n/a of Lima (fields surrounding the city) to the Puente de Palo, Abreu and Juan de la n/a 7. n/a have wheat cleaned and prepared for sale. Barrio Nuevo and Celda; 2. Nicolas de Chuquitanta to Torres and Francisco Carabayllo/Maranga; 2. Manuel de Billena; 3. Maranga; 3.la Legua to Alonso Laço de la mouth of River Rimac, Vega; 4. Francisco de 4. Late and Surco; 5. Aro and Juan de la Santa Beatriz and fields Pressa y de la Cueba; irrigated by Huatica 5. Albaro de Canal; 6. Lurigancho, Villafuerta; 6. Antonio Amancaes, Guachipa; de Campos; 7. Diego 7. Pachacama de Caravajal 21.XII.1685 Cabildo sends representatives to Valley of 1. Carabayllo; 2. La 1. Pedro Lascano and n/a n/a n/a Lima (fields surrounding the city) to Legua, Magdalena, Diego Manrrique de inspect wheat. Maranga; 3. Lara; 2. Diego Pachacama; 4. Surco; 5. Bermudes de la Torre; Late; 6. Lurigancho 3. Luis de Sandobal and Diego Hurtado; 4. Pedro de Hazana; 5. Juan Cascante; 6. Joseph Bejarano

333 Appendix F Alhóndiga officials and operation in the Libros de Cabildos de Lima (1555-1687). Important events in the operation of the Alhóndiga, as well as names of Deputies/Commissioners and Supervisors of the Alhóndiga are listed by year. Abbreviations include: Alcalde Ordinario (AO) (Mayors), Regidor (R) (Councilman). Dates written as day.month(Roman Numeral).year.

Year Important Events in the Operation of the Alhóndiga (Date) Alhóndiga Deputies and Commissioners6 Alhóndiga Supervisor7 (Date (Date Named) Named) 1555 Cabildo decides to build an Alhóndiga and creates ordinances for its management. Geronimo de Silva (AO) put in charge of finding a location (10.V.1555, 31.V.1555, 7.VII.1555). 1556 1557 Alhóndiga under construction (4.VI.1557, 10.XII.1557); First Deputy and Juan de Astudillo Montenegro (R) Alonso Gomez (for 2.5 years) Supervisor of the Alhóndiga appointed (12.VII.1557, 20.IX.1557). (12.VI.1557) (20.IX.1557) 1558 Continuation of construction, specifically bricks and plaster (10.I.1558); Rodrigo Niño (AO), Juan de Astudillo Pedro de Balboa (19.X.1558) Alhóndiga opens, Cabildo names Pedro de Balboa as supervisor Montenegro (R) (2.I.1558) (31.X.1558). 1559 Geronimo de Silva (AO), Alonso de Montalvan Pedro de Balboa (R) (2.II.1559) 1560 Sebastian Sanchez de Merlo (AO), Juan de Pedro de Balboa (18.III.1560) Astudillo Montenegro (R) (1.I.1560) 1561 Sale of wheat and maize in the main plaza because of disorder in the Lorenzo de Estupiñan (AO), Juan Cortes (R) Pedro de Balboa Alhóndiga. Cabildo requires Pedro de Balboa to report (17.II.1561); Lack (3.I.1561) of wheat and maize in the Alhóndiga because no grain that enters the port of Callao is being brought to the Alhóndiga. Cabildo issues ordinance that ships bringing grain to the port are required to send it to the Alhóndiga, to avoid middlemen (11.IV.1561); Alhóndiga "Estanco" tax is removed, so that all can freely bring their grain to the Alhóndiga (1.VIII.1561).

6 Deputies: 1557-1584, 1587, 1589-1592) (Diputados de la Alhóndiga) and Commisioners (1585-1586, 1588, 1593-1621) (Comisarios del Alhóndiga) 7 Fiel de La Alhóndiga

334 1562 Cabildo buys wheat outside city for Alhóndiga (9.III.1562, 22.VI.1562); Francisco Velazquez Talavera (AO) (5.I.1562) Price of wheat sold at Alhóndiga set lower than price of wheat bought by Alhóndiga, to help prevent grain shortages (10.VII.1562); Cabildo owes individuals who lent money for purchase of wheat and maize for Alhóndiga (6.X.1562). 1563 Muñoz Davila (AO), Geronimo de Silva (R) (4.I.1563) 1564 Lorenzo de Estupiñan (AO), Alonso de Ribera (R) (4.I.1564) 1565 Cabildo decides to locate weigh station for milled flour in the Alhóndiga Hordoño de Valencia (AO), Lorenzo de Aliaga building (7.IX.1565). (R) (2.I.1565) 1566 Alhóndiga and city in general lacking funds to purchase wheat Juan de Cadahalso (AO), Hernan Gonçalez (R) Diego Muñoz Calvo (20.VI.1566). (2.I.1566) (2.XII.1566) 1567 Gomez de Caravantes (AO), Francisco Hortiz Diego Muñoz Calvo de Arbildo (R) (4.I.1567) 1568 Alvaro de Torres (AO), Hernan Gonçalez (R) Diego Muñoz Calvo (2.I.1568) 1569 Ruiz Destrada (R) (I.1569 to 24.IV.1569), Martin de Ampuero (R) (24.IV.1569 to XII.1569) 1570 1571 Ordinance requiring that all milled wheat/flour be officially weighed at the Francisco de Ampuero (AO), Francisco Ortiz Felipe Centurion Alhóndiga (1.VII.1571). de Arbildo (R) (2.I.1571) 1572 Alvaro de Torres (AO), Diego de Aguero (R) Felipe Centurion (fired (11.I.1572) 22.IX.1572, see also 31.X.1572, 7.XI.1572), Diego Gonçalez de Porras (29.IX.1572 to XII.1572) 1573 Alhóndiga building needs repairs. The Alhóndiga deputies are put in Agustin Ramirez de Molina (AO), Francisco Diego Gonzales de Porras charge of finding the funds and sending them to the Alhóndiga supervisor Hortiz de Arbildo (R) (9.I.1573) (9.I.1573 to 18.V.1573 due to (3.IV.1573). illness), Felipe Centurion (18.V.1573 to XII.1573) 1574 Sancho de Ribera (AO), Martin de Ampuero Felipe Centurion (8.I.1574 - (R) (23.XII.1573) 18.III.1574, death, see also 9.VIII.1574)

335 1575 Cabildo buys wheat outside city for Alhóndiga (7.V.1575, 29.VII.1575). Diego de Porras (AO), Diego de Aguero (R) Complaints of disorder in the Alhóndiga, especially against current (7.I.1575) Supervisor, Julian de Vera. "There is no grain because the owners don't wnt to put it in the Alhóndiga…they say they prefer to through it in the river before putting it in the Alhóndiga. After discussion, the Cabildo decides to fire Julian de Vera and look for a replacement (1.VI.1575). 1576 Repairs to the Alhóndiga building (2.III.1576). The Alhóndiga is poorly Juan de la Arrinaga (AO) Alonso de Morales (2.III.1576- supplied with wheat, maize, and other grains because the Alhóndiga 23.VII.1576), Juan Sanchez supervisor, Alonso Morales, has too many outside obligations. Cabildo (23.VII.1576-XII.1576). buys wheat outside city for Alhóndiga (11.V.1576, 21.V.1576, 23.VII.1576, 7.IX.1576). 1577 Agustin Ramirez de Molina (AO), Martin de Juan Sanches (9.I.1577) Ampuero (R) (3.I.1577) 1578 Complaints about lack of wheat in Alhóndiga and general bad Garçi Barva (AO), Lorenço de Aliaga (R) management (3.X.1578). Cabildo buys wheat outside city for Alhóndiga (3.I.1578) (3.X.1578, 12.XII.1578). 1579 Cabildo buys wheat outside city for Alhóndiga, Commissioners of the Melchior de Cadalhaso (AO), Francisco Ortiz Alhóndiga are put in charge (7.VIII.1579, 21.VIII.1579). de Arbildo (R) (2.I.1579) 1580 Complaints that Alhóndiga Supervisor is not paying for the grain Juan de Cadalso Salazar (AO), Francisco Ortiz Joan Sanchez Bernal (I.1580 to deposited in the Alhóndiga (27.V.1580). R who bought wheat outside de Arbildo (R) (4.I.1580) 29.VII.1580), Francisco de Lima to send to Alhóndiga has not been paid for his trip (17.VI.1580). Morales (29.VII.1580 to Cabildo decides to fire Alhóndiga Supervisor Joan Sanchez Bernal due to XII.1580) mismanagement, replaces him with Francisco de Morales (29.VII.1580). 1581 Cabildo ordinance stating that all wheat entering Callao be brought to the n/a Alhóndiga (7.VII.1581). Repairs to Alhóndiga Building. 1582 Cabildo buys wheat outside city for Alhóndiga (26.V.1582, 22.V.1582, Lorenzo de Aliaga (R) (22.V.1582) 16.VII.1582). Ordinance issued stating that all wheat harvested in Lima's surrounding fields be brought to the Alhóndiga (2.VII.1582). 1583 Viceregal ordinance for Alhóndiga, copied from wheat ordinances of Martin Alonso de Ampuero (AO), Luis Lope de Gatica Mexico City, updating current laws (no detail) (4.I.1583). Cabildo buys Rodriguez de la Serna (R) (4.I1583) wheat outside city for Alhóndiga (4.II.1583, 8.II.1583, 11.II.1583). Prohibition of the sale of wheat outside of the Alhóndiga (8.II.1583). Repairs to Alhóndiga building (2.VI.1583). Sale of wheat to the Alhóndiga (29.X.1583).

336 1584 Repairs to the scale used for the wheat/flour sent to/from the mills Garçi Barva (AO), Francisco de Ampuero Lope de Gatica, Bentura del (10.I.1584). Repairs to Alhóndiga building (31.I.1584). Alhóndiga (AO) (16.I.1584). Salary same as previous Valle (12.VI.1584) accounts approved by Cabildo (12.VI.1584). deputy. 1585 Cabildo discussion about how the location of the Alhóndiga is Francisco Manrrique de Lara (AO), Francisco inconvenient, idea of selling current building and buying a new one is Ortiz de Arbildo (R) (8.I.1585) considered (6.XII.1585). 1586 Viceroy orders that Lima farmers deposit half of all of the wheat they Simon Luis de Luzio (10.I.1586). Customary grow in the Alhóndiga (8.VII.1586). Cabildo buys wheat outside city for salary. Alhóndiga (8.VII.1586). 1587 General lack of wheat, Viceroy orders inspection of wheat and that all Luis Rodriguez de la Serna, Diego Nuñez de Vicente Maçedo (26.I.1587) wheat found be sent to the Alhóndiga (10.I.1587). Cabildo buys wheat Figueroa (7.I.1587). Customary salary. outside city for Alhóndiga (13.V.1587). Repairs to the Alhóndiga building (13.V.1587). Cabildo discussion of need to buy/rent storage space in Callao for wheat, to use Alhóndiga funds for this purpose (26.X.1587). 1588 Cabildo buys wheat outside city for Alhóndiga (22.I.1588, 25.II.1588). Luis Rodriguez de la Serna (R), Diego Nuñez Ana Mexia (widow of Vicente de Figueroa (R) (8.I.1588) Maçedo) (12.VIII.1588 - 26.VIII.1588), Bentura del Balle (26.VIII.1588 - XII.1588) 1589 Martin de Ampuero (R), Gregorio Ortiz (R) (2.I.1589) 1590 Alhóndiga Supervisor ordered to pay for all wheat recently deposited in Juan de Barrios (AO), Martin de Ampuero (R) the Alhóndiga as well as other debts (22.X.1590). Rising wheat prices (10.I.1590) prompt Alhóndiga Deputies to have a discussion with Viceroy (without detail) (1.XII.1590). 1591 Francisco de Mendoça Mannrique (AO), Alvaro de Aloçer (R) (4.I.1591). Customary salary. 1592 Payment for wheat purchased outside of the city for the Alhóndiga Damian de Menesses (AO), Luis Rodriguez de Bentura del Valle (same salary (16.XII.1592). la Serna (R) (3.I.1592). Salary: 25 pesos each. as before) 1593 Pedro de Zarate (AO), Simon Luis de Luzio (R) (4.I.1593). Customary salary. 1594 n/a 1595 n/a 1596 Juan de Cadalsso Salazar (AO), Francisco Severino de Torres (R) (3.I.1596). Customary

337 salary

1597 1598 Alonso Bargas Carbajal (AO), Françisco Çeverino de Torres (R) (7.I.1598). Customary salary. 1599 Josepe de Ribera (AO), Françisco Severino de Torres (R) (5.I.1599). Customary salary 1600 Juan Davalos de Rivera (AO), Francisco Severino de Torres (R) (13.I.1600) 1601 Calls to bring order to the Alhóndiga and to repair the building Francisco de la Cueba (AO), Simon Luis de (28.IX.1601). Luçio (R) (9.I.1601). Salary: 25 pesos each. 1602 Diego de Carvajal (AO), Simon Luis de Lucio (R), Francisco Severino de Torres (R), Francisco de Leon (R) (4.I.1602) 1603 Fernando de Cordoba y Figueroa (AO), Francisco de Mansilla Marroqui (R) (9.I.1603) / Fernando Niño de Guzman (AO), Luis Rodriguez de la Serna (R) (13.I.1603). Salary: 25 pesos each. 1605 Rodrigo de Guzman (AO), Nicolas de Ribera (R) (3.I.1605). Salary: 25 pesos each. 1606 Cabildo discusses how no one currently brings grain to the Alhóndiga, and Diego de Portugal (AO) Martin de Ampuero how the building is empty. Idea of renting the building to bring income to (R) (23.I.1606). city discussed. Alcaldes Ordinarios and Alhóndiga commissioners put in charge of decision (31.III.1606). 1607 Luis de Castilla Altamirano (AO), Martin Ampuero (R) (8.I.1607). Salary: 25 pesos each. 1608 Juan de la Cueba Villaviçençio (AO), Martin de Ampuero (R) (18.I.1608). Salary: 25 pesos each. 1609 Juan Dabalos de Ribera (AO), Martin de Ampuero (R) (9.I.1609). Salary: 25 pesos each. 1610 Cabildo discusses whether to sell or rent the Alhóndiga building. Five Res n/a vote to sell, because the building is not being maintained and is in poor

338 condition, even though they recognize that it is important to have an Alhóndiga, like in all the Spanish cities. Five Res vote to keep the Alhóndiga in its current location. Future discussion is proposed (24.IV.1610). Cabildo votes to obtain more information about the possible sale of the Alhóndiga (7.V.1610). Cabildo receives further information about possible sale/rental of the Alhóndiga building (and related properties). The vote after the discussion is to rent the site to someone who will run an Alhóndiga (25.V.1610). 1611 R Martin Pizarro continues to promote revival of the Alhóndiga, arguing n/a Miguel Geronimo that it will help prevent severe shortages. Calls for hiring the most capable people available. (12.IV.1611). 1612 Bartolome de Oznayo (AO), Leandro de la Rinaga Salaçar (R) (4.I.1612) / Bartolome de Oznayo (AO), Francisco de Leon Garabito (R), Xpoval de Arriaga de Alarcon (R) (18.I.1612). Salary: 25 pesos each. 1613 Majordomo of the city presents argument to rent the Alhóndiga building, n/a given that no one currently deposits grain there, and that it is no longer necessary (1.VII.1613). 1614 Majordomo of the city again asks Cabildo to rent the Alhóndiga building Alonso de Mendoça y Hinojosa (AO), Nicolas (11.IV.1614). de Ribera y Abalos (R) (3.I.1614 ) [Alonso de Mendoça died (24.VI.1614), was replaced as Alcalde by Diego de Aguero] 1615 Juan Arevalo Despinossa (AO), Julian de Lorca (R) (5.I.1615) 1616 n/a 1617 Juan Arebalo Despinosa (AO), Nicolas de Ribera y Abalos (R) (2.I.1617). Salary: 25 pesos each. 1618 Juan de Çarate (AO), Nicolas de Ribera y Abalos (R) (5.I.1618). Salary: 25 pesos each. 1619 Jusepe de Ribera y Abalos (AO), Nicolas de Ribera y Abalos (R) (4.I.1619). Salary: 25 pesos each.

339 1620 Pedro de Bedoya y Guebara (AO), Leandro de Rinaga Salaçar (R) (3.I.1620). Salary: 25 pesos each. 1621 Juan Arebalo Despinosa (AO), Leandro de la Rinaga (R) (8.1.1621). Salary: 25 pesos each. 1622 No further Commissioners/Deputies, or Supervisors are named because No commissioners named (4.I.1622) the Alhóndiga is no longer in operation. The Cabildo continues to reserve the right to name officials so should the Alhóndiga be reopened (4.I.1622). 1623 same as 1622 (2.I.1623) 1624 same as 1622 (8.I.1624) 1625 same as 1622 (3.I.1625) 1626 none 1627 none 1628 same as 1622 (3.I.1628) 1629 same as 1622 (2.I.1629) 1630 n/a 1631 missing folios 1632 same as 1622 (2.I.1632) 1633 same as 1622 (3.I.1633) 1634 same as 1622 (2.I.1634) 1635 Cabildo buys wheat outside city but does not send it to Alhóndiga same as 1622 (2.I.1635) (24.VII.1635). Cabildo buys wheat outside the city for the Alhóndiga (unclear) (17.VIII.1635). 1636 same as 1622 (2.I.1636) 1637 Auction for renting out the Alhóndiga (30.IV.1637). Alhóndiga building same as 1622 (2.I.1637) rented to Juan Fernandez, but there was a problem with the auction so it is to be repeated (8.IV.1637). 1638 n/a 1639 Auction for renting out Alhóndiga planned (31.III.1639). n/a 1640 same as 1622 (3.I.1640) 1641 same as 1622 (2.I.1641) 1642 same as 1622 (2.I.1642) 1643 Mention of sale or rent of the Alhóndiga (no detail) (23.IX.1643). same as 1622 (2.I.1643)

340 1644 same as 1622 (2.I.1644) 1645 same as 1622 (3.I.1645) 1646 same as 1622 (2.I.1646) 1647 same as 1622 (2.I.1647) 1648 same as 1622 (2.I.1648) 1649 same as 1622 (2.I.1649) 1650 n/a 1651 same as 1622 (2.I.1651) 1652 same as 1622 (2.I.1652) 1653 same as 1622 (2.I.1653) 1654 same as 1622 (2.I.1654) 1655 same as 1622 (2.I.1655) 1656 same as 1622 (3.I.1656) 1657 same as 1622 (2.I.1567) 1658 same as 1622 (2.I.1658) 1659 same as 1622 (2.I.1659) 1660 same as 1622 (2.I.1660) 1661 same as 1622 (3.I.1661) 1662 same as 1622 (2.I.1662) 1663 same as 1622 (2.I.1663) 1664 same as 1622 (2.I.1664) 1665 same as 1622 (2.I.1665) 1666 same as 1622 (1.I.1666) 1667 same as 1622 (3.I.1667) 1668 Last year Cabildo continues to reserve right to name Commissioners/ same as 1622 (2.I.1668) Deputies and Supervisors of the Alhóndiga. After this date Alhóndiga officials are no longer mentioned (2.I.1668). 1687 Offer of 7000 pesos for the Alhóndiga building made to the Cabildo (22.IV.1687). A city accountant declares the value of all of the City properties on the Calle de la Pescaderia, which includes the Alhóndiga house as 16,000 pesos (6.XII.1687). Cabildo discusses selling the Alhóndiga building (16.XII.1687).

341 Appendix G Wheat and bread prices set by the Cabildo in the Libros de Cabildos de Lima (1549-1700). Information on the Cabildo's official wheat and maize prices (unit: pesos/fanega), and official bread and semitas (lower quality bread) prices (units: libras/peso or onzas/real) is listed, along with relevant geographic details where applicable. Information on units in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4. Abbreviations include: pesos/fanega (p/f), libras/peso (l/p), and onzas/real (o/r). Dates written as day.month(Roman Numeral).year.

Date Wheat Maize Bread Price Semita Price Geographic Detail/Other Note Price Price (l/p) or (o/r) (l/p) or (o/r) (p/f) (p/f) 8.III.1537 2 Price in pesos de oro. 20.VI.1539 2 Price in pesos de oro. 11.VII.1539 2 Price in pesos de oro. 31.III.1549 23 l/p Price in pesos de oro. 28.V.1549 22 l/p Price in pesos de oro. 26.VI.1549 20 l/p Price in pesos de oro. 30.VII.1549 20 l/p Price in pesos de oro; previously price was 28 l/p. 30.V.1551 2 32 l/p Price in pesos de oro, discussion of lack of weight in bread. 21.VIII.1551 1 bread = 1 libra 20.XI.1551 32 l/p raised to 36 l/p Wheat price has lowered. 23.VI.1553 more than 36 l/p 30.VI.1553 Regidor experimented and found 120 libras of bread could be obtained from 1 fanega of clean and good wheat. Recommended lowering bread price. 1.IX.1553 36 l/p Price set according to city ordinances. 26.IV.1558 36 l/p 23.I.1562 32 l/p 1 bread = 1 libra 10.VII.1562 2.25 Alhóndiga buys wheat at 2.5 p/f but sells it at 2.25 p/f. 21.VI.1563 70 o/r 1 bread = 14 onzas 17.XI.1564 56 o/r 31.I.1568 24 l/p 65 l/p

342 23.I.1562 32 l/p 1 bread =1 libra 29.VII.1575 Wheat prices have risen (no detail). 22.VI.1583 10 o/r 1 bread = 10 onzas, 8 semitas = 7 onzas 5.VI.1583 3.75 Cabildo sets wheat price at 3 p/f, but wheat is actually being sold at 3.75-4.25 p/f . 2.IX.1583 3.75 9.XI.1584 1 bread = 12 onzas, wheat is currently cheap. 14.VII.1586 3.5 3.5 Wheat and maize prices set by Cabildo and Viceroy after earthquake of 9.VII.1586. Reference to the same price being set for wheat from Lima's valleys and from "other parts." 14.VIII.1586 1 l/r People are selling poor quality bread ("pan regalado") at 10-12 o/r. The Cabildo determines it is possible to make 14-15 pesos of bread from one fanega of wheat. 13.V.1587 4.75 Cabildo sets official wheat price. 15.X.1587 3 Cabildo sets official maize price. 22.I.1591 4 24 o/r 1 bread = 8 onzas 11.III.1591 Petition from farmers to the Viceroy to raise price of wheat, Regidores selected to discuss issue with Viceroy. 9.VII.1599 2.5 40 o/r The wheat price has lowered, but bakers are not giving more bread than when wheat was worth 4 p/f, Cabildo determines each bread should weigh 10 onzas. 8.X.1599 2 Wheat is cheap, but bakers are making breads too small. Cabildo sets required weights for different kinds of bread: 1 quartillo bread =12 onzas, 1 regalado bread = 8 onzas. 10.V.1602 5 Cabildo sets official wheat price. 12.XI.1604 36 o/r 1 bread = 9 onzas 3.VII.1606 2.5 Discussion of price of cakes/pastries. 31.VIII.1607 4 Wheat price has risen, now being sold at 5 -5.5 p/f, Cabildo sets a lower price. 7.VIII.1607 32 o/r 28.XI.1607 20 o/r 40 o/r 5.I.1608 32 o/r 3.VII.1610 4 28 o/r Wheat sellers want 5-5.5 p/f, and 20 o/r, but Cabildo sets lower prices. 24.IX.1610 Decision to announce new official price of wheat (no detail). 15.X.1610 5 4.5 24 o/r 48 o/r Wheat was selling at 8-9 p/f and maize at 6-7 p/f. After consultation with the Viceroy, the Cabildo sets a new lower official price. 29.X.1610 New official wheat price is unpopular. Cabildo sends regidores to bring more wheat to the city. 23.III.1613 28 o/r 56 o/r

343 4.XI.1613 32 o/r 64 o/r 14.IV.1614 40 o/r 80 o/r Wheat is abundant. 18.XI.1616 3.75 32 o/r 64 v Cabildo sets official wheat price. 30.IV.1618 6 Wheat prices rising, no one wants to sell it at 6 p/f (presumably the official price). Cabildo consults with Viceroy and sends Regidores to bring more wheat. 9.XII.1621 Wheat price has risen; conflict of interest with Regidores who are reselling wheat (questionable legality). 18.VIII.1621 5.5 Sudden wheat price spike from 4 p/f to 5.5 p/f is causing people to travel outside the city to buy wheat in order to sell at profit. 23.VIII.1621 5.5 24 o/r 48 o/r Cabildo sets official wheat price. 21.VI.1624 3 Pirates in port, caused wheat price to rise from 2 p/f to 4-5 p/f. Official price set at 3 p/f but not respected because wheat is being held by "powerful people." Embargo placed on wheat. 9.VIII.1624 4 No one is selling wheat at the official price of 4 p/f, but rather at 5 p/f. Cabildo decides to consult with Viceroy. One idea is to collect all the wheat and bring it to a storehouse in Callao from which point an Alcalde and Inspector will divide it between the bakers. 22.VIII.1625 3.5 After consultation with Viceroy, Regidores vote to make a new bread cómputo. 5.XI.1627 4 28 o/r 56 o/r Wheat price spike over the past ten days from 3.125-3.25 p/f to 5 p/f, even though there is no shortage. Cabildo re-sets price at 4 p/f. 30.VIII.1635 5.5 22 o/r Cabildo forgives those who are selling wheat at a profit because of scarcity (the Cabildo wants wheat to be brought to the city). Discussion of how Lima valley wheat is better than imported wheat, and should be sold at a higher price. Discussion of the impossibility of storing wheat in Lima. Wheat selling for 7.5 p/f in Lima's valleys, 4.875 p/f in port, even though official prices is set at 4 p/f. Cabildo raises official valley price to 5.5 p/f and port price to 5 p/f. 17.IX.1635 4 2.V.1636 Discussion about making new bread cómputo. 3.X.1641 5.75 Wheat scarcity. Cabildo discusses bringing more wheat to the port and traveling to the valleys to control distribution. 6.X.1642 5.25 Wheat scarcity, bread sold at low weights. Cabildo discusses bringing more wheat to the city. 14.III.1647 4.25 Discussion of how regatones drive up wheat prices by holding wheat in ports of Chincha and Cañete. Regidores are sent to solve problem. 12.IX.1651 7 Cabildo sets official wheat price. 14.II.1652 7 Discussion about not applying official wheat price to those who farmers who pay to transport their own wheat, because this will only cause them to hide their wheat in hopes of receiving better prices in the future. Instead, the official price should only be applied to regatones. 344 4.III.1652 6 Cabildo votes to set new price 4.III.1652 Petition from hacendados/farmers asking that the official wheat price not be applied to them. 14.I.1653 5 22 o/r 40 o/r Cabildo sets official wheat price. 19.IX.1656 6 5 Cabildo sets price for wheat in port. 5.X.1656 6 Cabildo sets official wheat price. 26.I.1662 6 Alcalde asks a mule driver coming from Callao what price wheat is selling at, the mule driver says that the bakers will not pay 6.25 p/f for wheat. The Cabildo sets the new official price at 6p/f. 24.IV.1662 5 20 o/r 36 o/r Abundant harvests this year. Cabildo sets official price at 5 p/f. 2.XII.1666 3 Viceroy cancelled the official price of 3 p/f set by the Cabildo, although Cabildo continues to try to enforce this price. Wheat now said to cost 2.125-2.5 p/f (high quality wheat) and 1.75-2 p/f (low quality wheat). Bakers to lower bread prices. 3.IV.1667 Call to make a new bread cómputo, to replace that of 1653 24.X.1667 3.5 Cabildo sets official wheat price. n.d. Nov. or 4.5 Cabildo sets official wheat price. Dec. 1667 5.III.1668 Discussion about new bread cómputo at request of bakers. 30.X.1668 Continuation of previous, Cabildo sends representative to the port to determine price of wheat. 25.I.1669 5 Cabildo sets official wheat price at 5 p/f even though it is currently selling at 5.5 p/f. 22.III.1669 5 People are buying up wheat from Lima's valleys and hoarding it to raise its price. The Cabildo names commissioners to deal with the issue. 27.III.1669 5 Conflict between farmers and bakers over wheat availability: bakers claim not to have enough wheat because farmers are holding it, waiting for more favorable prices before selling. The Cabildo sends commissioners to force farmers to winnow and clean their wheat, and sell it. 25.VI.1669 5 Cabildo sets official wheat price at 5 p/f even though it is being sold for 4.5 p/f in Callao. 9.VII.1670 4 Cabildo discusses lowering the official wheat price (4 p/f) because it is being sold more cheaply (2.25-2.5 p/f ) in Callao. 26.XI.1670 Cabildo discusses inspecting the
fanega measures used by farmers in Lima's valleys. 16.III.1672 4 Official price lowered from 4.5 p/f to 4 p/f. The Cabildo discusses difference in price between valley wheat and imported wheat: 4.25 p/f (valley) and 3.5 p/f (imported, in Callao).

345 12.II.1675 3 The Cabildo lowers the official wheat price from 3.5 to 3 p/f because wheat is being sold for 3 p/f in Callao. 19.II.1675 Farmers ask that bakers be allowed to pay for wheat on credit. 22.II.1675 3.5 The official wheat price was 3 p/f, but farmers are taking a long time to thresh and winnow the wheat, and bakers request that the Cabildo allow them to sell bread at the wheat price of 3.5 p/f. The Cabildo also discusses how farmers are supposed to sell wheat (threshed and winnowed) and how bakers are supposed to weigh bread. 13.IX.1675 4 The Cabildo rejects bakers' petition to raise official wheat price to 4.5 p/f. The bakers' logic is that wheat is being sold in Callao for 4.5 p/f. The Cabildo rejects their petition because wheat in Lima is selling at less than 4 p/f. 12.III.1676 3 Wheat is very cheap, official wheat price is lowered from 3.5 p/f to 3 p/f. 1.II.1678 Petition from bakers to raise official wheat price, no detail. 22.IV.1678 Further discussion of baker's petition (see previous). 6.V.1678 3.5 Cabildo sets official wheat price. 30.I.1680 3 Cabildo sets official wheat price. 3.IX.1680 The Cabildo discusses whether to raise the official wheat price. If it is raised, the bakers may not make bread; if it is lowered, sellers might hoard it until it rises again. Wheat currently selling between 3.5-4 p/f (valley wheat selling at 3.5 p/f). 13.IX.1680 3 Cabildo sets official wheat price. 29.X.1680 4 Cabildo sets official wheat price. 25.II.1681 3.5 Cabildo sets official wheat price. 1.X.1681 4 The Cabildo responds to bakers' petition to enforce official wheat price at 4 p/f, since some people are selling wheat at a higher price. 12.XI.1681 4.5 Bakers petition to raise official wheat price from 4 p/f to 5 p/f. The Cabildo raises price to 4.5 p/f. 22.I.1682 The Cabildo discusses the official wheat price without a conclusion. One option is to set it at 4 p/f. 6.II.1682 4 Cabildo sets official wheat price. 26.II.1682 3.5 Cabildo sets official wheat price. 11.III.1682 Discussion of bread cómputo. 30.X.1682 4 Cabildo sets official wheat price. 18.XI.1682 3.5 Cabildo sets official wheat price. 5.X.1685 Bakers petition for official wheat price to be set at 4 p/f. 16.X.1685 3.5 In response to bakers' petition to raise wheat to 4 p/f (see previous) the Cabildo sets official wheat price at 3.5 p/f.

346 9.X.1685 Bakers petition again for official wheat price to be set at 4 p/f. 23.X.1685 4 The Cabildo votes on the official wheat price, in response to the bakers' petition. It decides to set the price at 4 p/f (raised from 3.5 p/f), as the bakers requested. 21.XI.1685 5 Cabildo sets official wheat price. 8.I.1686 4.5 Cabildo sets official wheat price. 11.I.1686 4.5 The Cabildo discusses changing the official wheat price. While the regidores are not in agreement, price remains set at 4.5 p/f (half the regidores voted for 4 p/f). 25.I.1686 4 Cabildo sets official wheat price in response to large amounts of imported wheat in Callao (2 regidores vote for price to be set at 3.5 p/f). 17.X.1686 4.5 Cabildo sets official wheat price. 8.XI.1686 4 Cabildo sets official wheat price. 29.IV.1688 5 Cabildo sets official wheat price. 28.IX.1688 5 Bakers petition to raise official wheat to 5.5 p/f. They claim they were currently buying it at 5.5-5.75 p/f. The Cabildo denies their petition. 7.X.1689 Bakers continue their petition, the Cabildo requests that they present more information. 11.X.1689 The Cabildo votes on whether to raise official wheat price or not, decide not. 14.X.1689 5 Bakers protest decision Cabildo decision (see previous), the Cabildo votes again, still decides not to raise official wheat price. 6.X.1690 Cabildo calls a special session to discuss the official wheat price. 25.V.1691 Cabildo calls a special session to discuss the official wheat price. 7.IX.1691 4 Wheat is abundant; bakers are buying it at 3-4 p/f. Cabildo sets official price at 4 p/f. 11.IX.1691 Bakers petition to revoke official wheat price of 4 p/f set a few days ago (see previous). The Cabildo decides it will take eight days to consider the request. 8.VIII.1692 5.5 Bad harvests cause wheat prices to rise. Cabildo sets official price at 5.5 p/f. 30.X.1692 7 15 o/r 52 o/r Wheat shortages. General disorder because bakers are not using correct measures. Cabildo sets official wheat price and bread measurement system. 6.II.1693 16 Cabildo discussion of extreme wheat shortages, and consequently high prices. Discusses two origins for wheat: Valley and Sierra. Price for both has risen as high as 20 p/f in the city, but the Cabildo sets the official price for all varieties at 16 p/f. 19.VIII.1695 Cabildo reports that wheat was selling at prices as high 30 p/f (not the official price). 9.I.1699 9 16 o/r 32 o/r Blanquillo wheat selling at 8-9 p/f, Sierra wheat selling at 6-7 p/f. The Cabildo sets the official wheat price at 9 p/f for all varieties. 24.I.1699 Cabildo discusses new bread cómputo to deal with diverse wheat varieties. (see also 9.III.1699). 29.VII.1699 Continued Cabildo discussion about new bread cómputo to deal with diverse wheat varieties.

347 20.IV.1700 Baker petition to raise price of wheat. 26.X.1700 Bakers ask for information on wheat price. 23.XII.1700 13.5 o/r (rebuelto); Cabildo specifies different prices for bread from different varieties of wheat 12 o/r (blanquillo) (rebuelto wheat is cheaper than blanquillo wheat). 7.I.1701 7.5 14.5 o/r 26 o/r Abundant wheat in Callao, prices for different varieties range from 5 p/f (colorado and rebuelto wheats) to 7 p/f (blanquillo wheat). Cabildo sets official wheat price at 7.5 p/f. 7.II.1701 7.5 Cabildo sets official wheat price. 20.IV.1701 Baker petition to raise price of wheat. 1.VII.1701 Baker petition to raise price of wheat. 7.VII.1701 6 Baker petition to raise price of wheat. 3.VIII.1701 6 32 o/r Folio cut, information incomplete. 15.IX.1701 9 Cabildo sets official wheat price and orders bakers to sell bread according to cómputo. 5.XI.1701 Bakers petition for price of bread to reflect the price of "today's" wheat. 2.XII.1701 8 13.5 o/r Wheat price in Callao set at 8 p/f, but no one will buy it. Sierra wheat selling at 6 p/f. Cabildo sets official price for all wheat varieties at 8 p/f. 10.I.1702 10 Bakers petition that price of bread is the same as price of wheat at its current price of 10 p/f. 1.IX.1702 9 Cabildo sets official wheat price. 27.I.1703 8 No one in Callao wants to buy blanquillo wheat at the official price of 8 p/f. Rebuelto wheat and valley wheat selling at 5-6 p/f. 29.III.1703 7 Cabildo determines that official wheat price should be lowered, because Blanquillo wheat is being sold at 6.25-6.75 p/f, other wheats of lower quality sold at cheaper prices. Cabildo sets official price at 7 p/f for the time being. 20.VI.1703 5 Wheat abundant in city and port, selling at 4-5 p/f. Cabildo sets official wheat price at 5 p/f. 25.VI.1703 Baker petition to raise price of wheat. 27.VI.1703 Baker petition to raise price of wheat. 22.II.1704 9.5 11.5 o/r 20 o/r Cabildo sets official wheat price. 4.III.1704 7 Ship from Chile and Cañete arrived with wheat, official wheat price is lowered. 3.IV.1704 6 Cabildo sets official wheat price. 9.I.1705 5 Cabildo sets official wheat price.

348 Bibliography Abbot, E. V. 1929. Stem rust of wheat in Peru. Phytopathology 19 (11):1041-1043. Acosta, J. d. 2002 [1590]. Natural and moral history of the Indies. Durham [N.C.]: Duke University Press. Arce, J. 1990. La estructura del acuífero de Lima. In Geología de Lima: Ciclo de conferencias. Lima: CEG, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Assadourian, C. S. 1982. El sistema de la economía colonial: mercado interno, regiones y espacio económico. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Bachmann, A. 1983. Traditional and new technology development in the Himalaya. Mountain Research and Development 3 (1):65-70. Bakker, K. 2003. Archipelagos and networks: urbanization and water privatization in the South. The Geographical Journal 169 (4):328-341. ———. 2011. Commons versus commodities: political ecologies of water privatization. In Global Political Ecology, eds. R. Peet, P. Robbins and M. Watts, 347-370. London: Routledge. Balée, W., and C. L. Erickson. 2006. Time, complexity, and historical ecology. In Time and complexity in historical ecology, eds. W. Balée and C. L. Erickson, 1-20. New York: Columbia University Press. Barceló, M. 1996. Saber lo que es un espacio hidráulico y lo que no es o Al-Andalus y lo feudales. In El agua que no duerme, eds. M. Barceló, H. Kirchner and C. Navarro, 75-90. Granada: El legado Andalusi. ———. 2004. The missing water-mill: a question of technological diffusion in the High Middle Ages. In The making of feudal agricultures?, eds. M. Barceló and F. Sigaut, 255-314. Boston: Brill. Barceló, M., and H. Kirchner eds. 1988. Arqueología medieval en las afueras del “medievalismo”. Barcelona: Crítica. Barnes, M., and D. Fleming. 1991. Filtration-gallery irrigation in the Spanish New World. Latin American Antiquity 2 (1):48-68. Bates, M., L. Mumford, C. O. Sauer, and W. L. Thomas. 1956. Man’s role in changing the face of the earth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bebbington, A. 2004. Movements and modernizations, markets and municipalities: Indigenous federations in rural Ecuador. In Liberation ecologies: environment, development, social movements, eds. R. Peet and M. Watts, 394. London: Routledge. Bell, M. 2012. Maps, management and mills in colonial Lima, Peru (1532–1821). Imago Mundi 64 (1):129-132. Bell, M., and G. Ramón. 2011. Introducción. Informe Final, Proyecto “Arqueología hidráulica colonial: autoridades, infraestructura y redes políticas (Lima, 1535- 1796)”, Instituo Riva-Agüero. Biehler, D. D. 2009. Permeable homes: a historical political ecology of insects and pesticides in US public housing. Geoforum 40 (6):1014-1023. Biehler, D. D., and G. L. Simon. 2011. The great indoors: research frontiers on indoor environments as active political-ecological spaces. Progress in Human Geography 35 (2):172-192.

349 Birkenholtz, T. 2009. Irrigated landscapes, produced scarcity, and adaptive social institutions in Rajasthan, India. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99 (1):118-137. Bloch, M. 1935. Avènement et conquêtes du moulin à eau. Annales d’histoire économique et sociale:538-563. Borah, W. W. 1985. El juzgado general de Indios en la Nueva España. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Brannstrom, C. 2004. What kind of history for what kind of political ecology? Historical Geography 32:71-87. Braudel, F. 1982. Civilization and capitalism, 15th-18th century. New York: Harper & Row. Bravo de Lagunas, P. J. 1959 [1755]. Voto Consultivo (1755). In La Emancipación en sus textos, ed. J. de La Puente, 82-195. Lima: Instituto Riva-Agüero, PUCP. Bridge, G. 2000. The social regulation of resource access and environmental impact: production, nature and contradiction in the US copper industry. Geoforum 31 (2):237-256. ———. 2001. Everyday ecologies: cities, nature, andteaching urban ecology. Journal of Geography 100 (4):154-165. ———. 2008. Global production networks and the extractive sector: governing resource- based development. Journal of Economic Geography 8 (3):389-419. Bridge, G., and T. Perreault. 2009. Environmental governance. In A companion to environmental geography, eds. N. Castree, D. Demeritt, D. Liverman and B. Rhoads, 475-497. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Bromley, J. 1942. Origen del agua potable de Lima. Boletin Municipal 1454:11-13. ———. 2005. Las viejas calles de Lima. Lima: Municipalidad Metropolitana de Lima. Bromley, J., and J. Barbagelata. 1945. Evolución urbana de Lima. Lima, Perú: Talleres gráficos de la editorial Lumen. Brooks, D. B., and J. Linton. 2011. Governance of transboundary aquifers: Balancing efficiency, equity and sustainability. International Journal of Water Resources Development 27 (3):431-462. Bryant, R. L., and M. K. Goodman. 2004. Consuming narratives: the political ecology of ‘alternative’ consumption. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 29 (3):344-366. Burros, M. 2010. Their daily bread is a local call away. New York Times, 8/24. Butzer, K. W. 1988. Cattle and sheep from Old to New Spain: Historical antecedents. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 78 (1):29-56. Butzer, K. W. 1989. Cultural ecology. In Geography in America, eds. G. L. Gaile and C. J. Willmott, 192-208. Columbus: Merrill Publishing. Butzer, K. W. 2005. Environmental history in the Mediterranean world: cross- disciplinary investigation of cause-and-effect for degradation and soil erosion. Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (12):1773-1800. Cañizares-Esguerra, J. 2006. Nature, empire, and nation : explorations of the history of science in the Iberian world. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Canseco, J. de 1988 [1617]. Repartimiento del agua del rio grande de esta Ciudad. Transcribed in N. Domínguez, “Aguas y Legislacion en los valles de Lima, el Repartimiento de 1617”, BIRA 15 (119-154).

350 Capparelli, A., V. Lema, M. Giovannetti, and R. Raffino. 2005. The introduction of Old World crops (wheat, barley and peach) in Andean Argentina during the 16th century A.D.: archaeobotanical and ethnohistorical evidence. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 14:472-484. Carey, M. 2010. In the shadow of melting glaciers: climate change and Andean society. New York: Oxford University Press. Carey, M., A. French, and E. O’Brien. 2012. Unintended effects of technology on climate change adaptation: an historical analysis of water conflicts below Andean Glaciers. Journal of Historical Geography 38 (2):181-191. Carney, J. A. 1996. Landscapes of technology transfer: rice cultivation and African continuities. Technology and culture 37 (1):5. ———. 2001. Black rice: the African origins of rice cultivation in the Americas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carney, J. A. 2004. ‘With grains in her hair’: rice in colonial Brazil. Slavery & Abolition 25 (1):1-27. Carney, J. A., and R. N. Rosomoff. 2009. In the shadow of slavery: Africa’s botanical legacy in the Atlantic world. Berkeley: University of California Press. CEHOPU ed. 1993. Obras hidráulicas en América colonial. Madrid: Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Transportes y Medio Ambiente. Censo, Consejo de. 1939. Las ocupaciones tipícas de los Peruanos a través del censo de 1939, ed. C. d. Censo. Lima: Antena. Center, USC Tsunami Research. 2013. Historical tsunamis n.d. [cited 02/11/13 2013]. Available from http://www.usc.edu/dept/tsunamis/peru/index.html. Cerdán de Landa, A. S. P. 1828. Tratado jeneral [sic] sobre las aguas que fertilizan los valles de Lima. Lima: Imprenta de la Libertad. Charney, P. 2001. Indian society in the valley of Lima, Peru, 1532-1824. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America. Chipana, L. 2013. Fotos: así quedó el muro de contención del proyecto Vía Parque Rímac. El Comercio, 28 December 2013. CIMMYT. Peru. Wheat atlas, 2/12/2013 2012 [cited Peru]. Available from http://wheatatlas.cimmyt.org/. Clark, B., and J. B. Foster. 2009. Ecological imperialism and the global metabolic rift unequal exchange and the guano/nitrates trade. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50 (3-4):311-334. Cobo, B. 1935 [1639]. Monografías históricas sobre la ciudad de Lima. Lima, Perú: Librería e Imprenta Gil. ———. 1956 [1653]. Obras: Historia del Nuevo Mundo. Madrid: Atlas. Codding, M. A. 1995. Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz and her worlds: an exhibition at the Hispanic Society of America. Colonial Latin American Review 4 (2):19-40. Coello, J. 2009. Micro-hydropower bringing services and incomes to communities in the Eastern Andes 2007 [cited 10/10 2009]. Available from http://www.ashdenawards.org/files/reports/Practical_Action_2007_Technical_rep ort.pdf. Cogorno, G. 2005. Tiempo de lomas: calidades del medio ambiente y administración de recursos. In Lima en el siglo XVI, ed. L. Gutiérrez, 19-102. Lima: PUCP, Instituto Riva-Agüero.

351 ———. 2011. Hidráulica urbana de Lima: espacio y gobierno, 1535-1596. In Informe Finale, Proyecto “Arqueología hidráulica colonial: autoridades, infraestructura y redes políticas (Lima, 1535-1796)”. Lima: Instituo Riva-Agüero. Colón, F. 2004. The history of the life and deeds of the Admiral Don Christopher Columbus. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols. Comercio, E. 2011. Nuevo aniego en Chorrillos: vecinos responsabilizan a paradero del Metropolitano. El Comercio, 12 October 2011. ———. 2012a. Colegio Trilce evitó S/.70 mil en pagos a Sedapal con conexión ilícita. El Comercio, 28 June 2012. ———. 2012b. Sedapal pierde S/.300 millones por año debido a robo de agua. El Comercio, 23 March 2012. Copenheaver, C. A., S. P. Prisley, J. R. Pittman, and M. E. Yonce. 2007. The geography of grist, flour, and saw mills: indicators of land-use history in Virginia. Southeastern Geographer 47 (1):138-154. Cresswell, R. 1983. Of mills and waterwheels : the hidden parameters of technological choice. In Technological choices : transformation in material cultures since the Neolithic, ed. P. Lemonnier. New York: Routledge. Cronon, W. 1983. Changes in the land : Indians, colonists, and the ecology of New England. New York: Hill and Wang. ———. 1991. Nature’s metropolis : Chicago and the Great West. New York: W.W. Norton. Crosby, A. W. 1972. The Columbian exchang : biological and cultural consequences of 1492. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. ———. 2009. Ecological imperialism: the biological expansion of Europe, 900 - 1900. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press. Cushner, N. P. 1980. Lords of the land: sugar, wine, and Jesuit estates of coastal Peru, 1600-1767. Albany: State University of New York Press. D’Altroy, T. N., and C. A. Hastorf. 1984. The distribution and contents of Inca state storehouses in the Xauxa region of Peru. American Antiquity 49 (2):334-349. Dalby, S. 2004. Ecological politics, violence, and the theme of empire. Global Environmental Politics 4 (2): 1-11. Davis, D. K. 2007. Resurrecting the granary of Rome: environmental history and French colonial expansion in North Africa. Athens: Ohio University Press. ———. 2009. Historical political ecology: on the importance of looking back to move forward. Geoforum 40 (3):285-286. Davis, M. 2004. The political ecology famine: the origins of the Third World. In Liberation ecologies: Environment, development, social movements, eds. R. Peet and M. Watts, 48-63. London: Routledge. Denevan, W. M. 2001. Cultivated landscapes of native Amazonia and the Andes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Domínguez, N. 1988. Aguas y legislación en los valles de Lima: el repartimiento de 1617. Boletín del Instituto Riva-Agüero 15:119-154. Doolittle, W. E. 1984. Agricultural change as an incremental process. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 74 (1):124-137. Doolittle, W. E. 2000. Cultivated landscapes of native North America. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

352 Dunmire, W. W. 2004. Gardens of New Spain: how Mediterranean plants and foods changed America. Austin: University of Texas Press. Endfield, G. H. 2007. Archival explorations of climate variability and social vulnerability in colonial Mexico. Climatic Change 83 (1-2):9-38. ———. 2008. Climate and society in colonial Mexico: a study in vulnerability. Malden, MA: Blackwell. ———. 2009. Environmental history. In A companion to environmental geography, eds. N. Castree, D. Demeritt, D. Liverman and B. Rhoads, 223-237. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Endfield, G. H., and I. Fernández Tejedo. 2006. Decades of drought, years of hunger: archival investigations of multiple year droughts in late colonial Chihuahua. Climatic Change 75 (4):391-419. Endfield, G. H., I. Fernández Tejedo, and S. L. O’Hara. 2004a. Conflict and cooperation: water, floods, and social response in colonial Guanajuato, Mexico. Environmental History 9 (2):221-247. ———. 2004b. Drought and disputes, deluge and dearth: climatic variability and human response in colonial Oaxaca, Mexico. Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2):249-276. Erickson, C. L. 2006. Intensification, political economy, and the farming community. In Agricultural strategies, eds. J. Marcus and C. Stanish, 334-363. Los Angeles: Costen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA. Feijoo, R. 1965. El tumulto de 1692. Historia mexicana 14 (4):656-679. Fernández Tejedo, I., G. H. Endfield, and S. O’Hara. 2004. Estrategias para el control del agua en Oaxaca colonial. Estudios de Historia Novohispana 31:137-198. Ferreyra, R. 1993. Registros de la vegetación en la costa Peruana en relación con el fenómeno el Niño. Bulletin de l’Institut français d’études andines 22 (1):259-266. FitzSimmons, M. 1989. The matter of nature. Antipode 21 (2):106-120. Flores Galindo, A. 1984. Aristocracia y plebe : Lima, 1760-1830 : (estructura de clases y sociedad colonial). San Isidro, Perú: Mosca Azul Editores. Foster, J. B. 1999. Marx’s theory of metabolic rift: classical foundations for environmental sociology 1. American Journal of Sociology 105 (2):366-405. Gade, D. W. 1971. Grist milling with the horizontal waterwheel in the Central Andes. Technology and Culture 12 (1):43-51. ———. 1992. Landscape, system, and identity in the post-conquest Andes. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 82 (3):460-477. ———. 2011. Tracking gristmills in Portugal: retrospection and reflexivity on place, technology, and change. Journal of Cultural Geography 28 (3):433-458. Gandy, M. 2003. Concrete and clay: reworking nature in New York City: MIT Press. ———. 2004. Rethinking urban metabolism: water, space and the modern city. City 8 (3):363-379. García-Diego, J. A. 1998. Introduction. In The twenty-one books of engineering and machines of Juanelo Turriano, ed. A. Keller. Madrid: Doce Calles. Garcia-Herrera, R., D. Barriopedro, E. Hernández, H. F. Diaz, R. R. Garcia, M. R. Prieto, and R. Moyano. 2008. A chronology of El Niño events from primary documentary sources in northern Peru. Journal of Climate 21 (9):1948–1962.

353 Gergis, J. L., and A. M. Fowler. 2009. A history of ENSO events since AD 1525: implications for future climate change. Climatic Change 92 (3-4):343-387. Glick, T. F. 1972. The Old World background of the irrigation system of San Antonio, Texas. El Paso: Texas Western Press. ———. 1995. From Muslim fortress to Christian castle: social and cultural change in medieval Spain. Manchester [u.a.: Manchester Univ. Press. ———. 1996. Irrigation and hydraulic technology: medieval Spain and its legacy. Aldershot, Hampshire, Great Britain; Brookfield, Vt.: Variorum. ———. 2005. Islamic and Christian Spain in the early Middle Ages. Boston: Brill. Glick, T. F., and H. Kirchner. 2000. Hydraulic systems and technologies of Islamic Spain: history and archaeology. Technology and Change in History 3:267-330. Glick, T. F., and L. P. Martínez. 2006. Mills and millers in Medieval Valencia. In Wind & Water in the Middle Ages, ed. S. A. Walton, 189-212. Tempe Arizona: ACMRS. González Tascón, I., and A. Vázquez de la Cueva. 1993. El agua en la España medieval tardía. In Obras Hidráulicas en América Colonial, ed. CEHOPU, 27-42. Madrid: Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Transportes y Medio Ambiente. Grau, M. 2011. En vísperas del día mundial del Agua, Lima se deshidrata. El Comercio, 20 March 2011. Gritzner, C. F. 1974. Hispano gristmills in New Mexico. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 64 (4):514-524. Grossman, L. S. 1993. The political ecology of banana exports and local food production in St. Vincent, eastern Caribbean. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 83 (2):347-367. Grove, R. 1996. Green imperialism: colonial expansion, tropical island Edens, and the origins of environmentalism, 1600-1860. Cambridge [England]; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Gutiérrez, L. 2005. Lima en el siglo XVI. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Harris, C. 2004. How did colonialism dispossess? Comments from an edge of empire. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94 (1):165-182. Heynen, N., M. Kaika, and E. Swyngedouw. 2006. In the nature of cities: urban political ecology and the politics of urban metabolism. London; New York: Routledge. Hocquenghem, A.-M., and L. Ortlieb. 1992. Eventos el Niño y lluvias anormales en la costa del Perú: Siglos XVI-XIX. Bulletin de l’Institut français d’études andines 21 (1):197-278. Holdsworth, D. W. 2003. Historical geography: new ways of imaging and seeing the past. Progress in Human Geography 27 (4):486-493. Holt, R. 1988. The mills of Medieval England. Oxford [etc.]: B. Blackwell. Hunter, L. C. 1967. The living past in the Appalachias of Europe: water-mills in southern Europe. Technology and Culture 8 (4):446-466. Hunter, R., and A. Sluyter. 2011. How incipient colonies create territory: the textual surveys of New Spain, 1520s–1620s. Journal of Historical Geography 37 (3):288-299. Indias, Consejo de. 1943. Recopilación de leyes de los reynos de las Indias, Vol 2. Madrid: [Consejo de la Hispanidad].

354 Ingold, T. 2000. The perception of the environment: essays on livelihood, dwelling & skill. London; New York: Routledge. Jamieson, R. W. 2008. The market for meat in colonial Cuenca: a seventeenth-century urban faunal assemblage from the southern highlands of Ecuador. Historical Archaeology 42 (4):21-37. Jamieson, R. W., and M. B. Sayre. 2010. Barley and identity in the Spanish colonial Audiencia of Quito: archaeobotany of the 18th century San Blas neighborhood in Riobamba. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29 (2):208-218. Jansen, K., and S. Vellema. 2011. What is technography? NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 57 (3–4):169-177. Jepson, W. 2012. Claiming space, claiming water: contested legal heographies of water in south Texas. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102 (3):614- 631. Kaika, M. 2005. City of flows: modernity, nature, and the city. New York: Routledge. ———. 2006. Dams as symbols of modernization: the urbanization of nature between geographical imagination and materiality. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96 (2):276-301. Keil, R. 2003. Urban political ecology. Urban Geography 24 (8):723-738. Keith, R. G. 1976. Conquest and agrarian change: the emergence of the hacienda system on the Peruvian coast. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Khennas, S. a. A. B. 2009. Best practices for sustainable development of micro hydro power in developing countries 2000 [cited 10/12 2009]. Available from http://www.microhydropower.net/download/bestpractsynthe.pdf. Kirchner, H., and C. Navarro. 1996. Objetivos, métodos y práctica de la arqueología hidráulica. In El agua que no duerme, eds. M. Barceló, H. Kirchner and C. Navarro, 92-118. Granada: El legado Andalusi. Kirsch, S., and D. Mitchell. 2004. The nature of things: dead labor, nonhuman actors, and the persistence of Marxism. Antipode 36 (4):687-705. Kloppenburg, J. R. 2004. First the seed: the political economy of plant biotechnology. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press. Knapp, G. 1992. Riego precolonial y tradicional en la sierra norte del Ecuador. Quito: Ediciones Abya Yala. ———. 2007. The legacy of European colonialism. In The Physical Geography of South America, eds. T. T. Veblen, K. R. Young and A. R. Orme, 279-288. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kosok, P. 1965. Life, land, and water in ancient Peru. New York: Long Island University Press. Kula, W. 1986. Measures and men. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lane, K. M. D. 2011. Water, technology, and the courtroom: negotiating reclamation policy in territorial New Mexico. Journal of Historical Geography 37 (3):300- 311. Larson, B. 1998. Cochabamba 1550-1900: colonialism and agrarian transformation in Bolivia. Duke: Duke University Press. las Casas, B. de. 1992. Vida de Cristóbal Colón. Caracas, Venezuela: Biblioteca Ayacucho.

355 Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Le Heron, R. 2009. Food and agriculture in a globalising world. In A companion to environmental geography, eds. N. Castree, D. Demeritt, D. Liverman and B. Rhoads, 552-566. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Lee, B. T., and J. Bromley. 1935-1964 [1534-1637]. Libros de Cabildos de Lima. Lima: Sanmartí. Lee, R. L. 1947. Grain legislation in colonial Mexico, 1575-1585. The Hispanic American Historical Review 27 (4):647-660. Lemonnier, P. ed. 1993. Technological choices: transformation in material cultures since the Neolithic. London; New York: Routledge. Lemos, M. C., and A. Agrawal. 2006. Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 31:297-325. Linton, J. 2010. What is water? The history of a modern abstraction. Vancouver: UBC Press. Liverman, D. 2004. Who governs, at what scale and at what price? Geography, environmental governance, and the commodification of nature. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94 (4):734-738. Lockhart, J. 1994. Spanish Peru, 1532-1560: A social history. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Loftus, A. 2009. Rethinking political ecologies of water. Third World Quarterly 30 (5):953-968. ———. 2011. Geographical perspectives on a radical political ecology of water. In Applied Urban Ecology, 193-203: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Loftus, A. J., and D. A. McDonald. 2001. Of liquid dreams: a political ecology of water privatization in Buenos Aires. Environment and Urbanization 13 (2):179-199. Lohmann Villena, G. 1983. Los regidores perpetuos del Cabildo de Lima (1535-1821) : crónica y estudio de un grupo de gestión. Volume 2. Sevilla: Excma. Diputación Provincial de Sevilla. ———. 1993. Los americanos en las órdenes nobiliarias. Volume 1. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. ———. 2001. El Corregidor de indios en el Peru bajo los Austrias. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Fondo Editorial. ———. 2010. La huella árabe en la cultura virreinal. In La huella árabe en el Perú =: Al-Athar al-
Arab f Br, eds. L. Bartet, F. Kahhat and D. Abuggatás, 165-170. Lima: Fondo Editorial del Congreso del Perú. Manrique, R., C. Ferrari, and G. Pezzi. 2010. The influence of El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) on fog oases along the Peruvian and Chilean coastal deserts. In 5th International Conference on Fog, Fog Collection and Dew. Münster, Germany. Martínez Compañón, B. J. 1782-1789. Trujillo del Perú. Marx, K. 1976 [1867]. Capital: a critique of political economy, volume 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Mateos Royo, J. A. 1998. The making of new landscape; town councils and water in the Kingdom of Aragon during the Sixteenth Century. Rural History 9:123-139.

356 Mateos Royo, J. A. 2011. In search of wheat: municipal politics, urban markets and the grain supply in Aragon in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Urban History 38 (02):211-233. McCarthy, J. 2002. First World political ecology: lessons from the Wise Use movement. Environment and Planning A 34 (7):1281-1302. ———. 2005. Scale, sovereignty, and strategy in environmental governance. Antipode 37 (4):731-753. McCarthy, J., and S. Prudham. 2004. Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism. Geoforum 35 (3):275-284. Melville, E. G. K. 1994. A plague of sheep: environmental consequences of the conquest of Mexico. New York: Cambridge University Press. Merchant, C. 2010. Ecological revolutions: nature, gender, and science in New England. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Millones Figueroa, L. 2010. The staff of life: wheat and ‘Indian Bread’ in the New World. Colonial Latin American Review 19 (2):301-322. Mitchell, T. 2009. Rule of experts: Egypt, techno-politics, modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press. Mol, A. P. J., and G. Spaargaren. 2006. Toward a sociology of environmental flows: a new agenda for Twenty-First-Century environmental sociology. In Governing environmental flows: Global challengest to social theory, eds. G. Spaargaren, A. P. J. Mol and F. H. Buttel, 39-82. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Moore, J. P. 1954. The Cabildo in Peru under the Hapsburgs. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. ———. 1966. The Cabildo in Peru under the Bourbons. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Moore, J. W. 2000. Environmental crises and the metabolic rift in world-historical perspective. Organization & Environment 13 (2):123-157. Mumford, L. 1934. Technics and civilization. London: Routledge. Newsom, L. A., and D. A. Trieu Gahr. 2011. Fusion gardens: native North America and the Columbian Exchange In The subsistence economies of Indigenous North American societies : a handbook, ed. B. D. Smith. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press. Norman, E. S., and K. Bakker. 2008. Transgressing scales: water governance across the Canada–US borderland. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99 (1):99-117. Offen, K. 2011. Historical geography I: vital traditions. Progress in Human Geography. Offen, K. H. 2004. Historical political ecology: an introduction. Historical Geography 32:19-42. Oka, S., and H. Ogawa. 1984. The distribution of lomas vegetation and its climatic environments along the Pacific coast of Peru. Geographical Reports of Tokyo Metropolitan University 19 (113-125). Palerm, J., and C. Chairez. 2000. Medidas antiguas de agua. Relaciones: Revistas de El Colegio de Michoacán 23 (92):227-251. Palza Becerra, H. 2006. El régimen de aguas en Lima colonial, el valle de Maranga, 1785-1820. Ukupacha 9:79-90.

357 Parsons, J., and W. M. Denevan. 1967. Pre-Columbian ridged fields. Scientific American 217 (1):92-101. Peñaherrera, C. 2004. Geografía. Lima: Empr. Ed. El Comercio. Pérez de Tudela y Bueso, J. ed. 1964. Documentos relativos a Don Pedro de la Gasca y a Gonzalo Pizarro contribucion al XXXVI congreso internacional de Americanistas. Madrid: Graficas Yagües. Pérez-Maillaína, P., E. 2000. La fabricación de un mito: el terremoto de 1687 y la ruina de los cultivos de trigo en el Perú. Anuario de Estudios Americanos 57 (1):69-88. Piwonka Figueroa, G. 1999. Las aguas de Santiago de Chile, 1541-1999. Santiago, Chile: Editorial Universitaria : EMOS: Centro de Investigaciones Diego Barros Arana. Prince, C. 1992 [1890]. Lima antigua por Carlos Prince, 1890: La Limeña y mas tipos de Antaño con numerosa veñefas. Serie 3. Lima: Instituto Latinoamericano de Cultura y Desarrollo. Pulgar Vidal, J. 1946. Historia y geografía del Perú: las ocho regiones naturales del Perú. Lima: UNMSM. Quinn, W. H., V. T. Neal, and S. E. Antunez de Mayolo. 1987. El Niño occurrences over the past four and a half centuries. Journal of Geophysical Research 92 (C13):14449-14461. Quiroz, F. 2008. Artesanos y manufactureros en Lima colonial. Lima: Banco Central de Reserva del Perú/IEP. Raimondi, A. 2009 [1824]. Aguas minerales y potables del Perú: autoridad científica y nuevos espacios de consagración republicanos. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Ediciones del Vicerrectorado Académico, Golden Associates: Asociación Educacional Antonio Raimondi. Ramón, G. 2011. El espacio hidráulico ilustrado: las jerarquías intraurbanas y el Plan[o] Topográfico de 1787. Informe Final, Proyecto “Arqueología hidráulica colonial: autoridades, infraestructura y redes políticas (Lima, 1535-1796)”, Instituo Riva- Agüero. Ramón Joffré, G. 2010. Ilustrar la urbe: planos de Lima borbónica. Illapa 7:62-79. Ramos Pérez, D. 1967. Trigo chileno; navieros del Callao y hacendados limeños entre la crisis agrícola del siglo XVII y la comercial de la primera mitad del XVIII. Madrid: Instituto “Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo,” Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Reed, M. G., and S. Bruyneel. 2010. Rescaling environmental governance, rethinking the state: a three-dimensional review. Progress in Human Geography 34 (5):646-653. Reti, L. 1967. The Codex of Juanelo Turriano (1500-1585). Technology and Culture 8 (1):53-66. Ribot, J., and N. Peluso. 2003. A theory of access. Rural Sociology 68 (2):153-181. Richards, P. 2010. A Green Revolution from below? Science and technology for global food security and poverty alleviation. In Farewell address upon retiring as Professor of Technology and Agrarian Development at Wageningen University. Rivera Serna, R. 1978. El trigo: comercio y panificación en las áreas de Lima y Huamanga (siglo XVI). In Historia, problema y promesa: Homenaje a Jorge Basadre, eds. F. Miró Quesada, F. Pease and D. Sobrevilla, 533-545. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru Fondo Editorial.

358 Robbins, P., and B. Marks. 2009. Assemblage geographies. In The SAGE handbook of social geographies, eds. S. Smith, S. Smith, R. Pain, J. Jones, III and S. Marston, 176-194. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. Rostworowski, M. 1999. El Señorío de Pachacamac, el informe de Rodrigo Cantos de Andrade de 1573. Lima: IEP/Banco Central de Reserva del Peru. Rupert, J. A. 1951. Rust resistance in the Mexican wheat improvement program. Mexico D.F.: Secretaria de Agricultura y Ganaderia de Mexico; Rockefeller Foundation. Saini, R. P., and A. Kumar. 2007. Water mills for multipurpose applications. Paper read at International Conference on Small Hydropower-Hydro 22-24 October 2007. , at Sri Lanka. San Cristóbal, A. 1993. Los alarifes de la ciudad en Lima durante el siglo XVII. Laboratorio de Arte 6:120-155. ———. 2005. Obras civiles en Lima durante el siglo XVII. Lima: Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. Sánchez, T., R. Escobar, S. Ramirez, W. Canedo, A. Gamarra, and Y. Guzmán. 2010. Evaluación de recursos hidroenergéticos. Lima: Soluciones Prácticas. Schlüpmann, J. 2006. Cartas edificantes sobre el comercio y la navegación entre Perú y Chile a comienzos del siglo XVIII: [correspondencia y contabilidad de una compañía comercial, 1713-1730]. Lima: IFEA, Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos : IEP, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Schott, D. 2004. Urban environmental history: what lessons are there to be learnt? Boreal Environment Research 9:519-528. Scott, C. A., and N. P. Pablos. 2011. Innovating resource regimes: water, wastewater, and the institutional dynamics of urban hydraulic reach in northwest Mexico. Geoforum 42 (4):439-450. Scott, J. 1998. Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press. SEDAPAL. 2013. Nuestra empresa: ubicación geográfica [cited 04/17/13 2013]. Available from http://www.sedapal.com.pe/5. Seiner Lizarraga, L. 2002. Estudios de historia medioambiental. Perú, siglos XVI-XX. Lima: Universidad de Lima, Fondo de Desarollo Editorial. Sen, I. 2008. Flour that has the flavor of home. New York Times, 9/10. SENAMHI. 2012. Boletin informativo monitoreo del fenomeno “El Niño/ La Niña” - Junio 2012. Lima: Ministerio del Ambiente. Service, N. P. Mission San Juan Capistrano, 7/4/2013 [cited 7/7/2013. Available from http://www.nps.gov/saan/historyculture/sanjuanhistory1.htm. Shaw, I. G. R., P. F. Robbins, and J. P. Jones III. 2010. A bug’s life and the spatial ontologies of mosquito management. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100 (2):373-392. Sherbondy, J. 1994. Water and power: the role of irrigation districts in the transition from Inca to Spanish Cuzco. In Irrigation at high altitudes: The social organization of water control in the Andes, eds. W. P. Mitchell and D. Guillet, 69-98. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Latin American Anthropology, American Anthropological Association, University of Michigan. Silva Nole, L. 2011. Un 35% del agua potable de Lima se pierde por las tuberías. El Comercio, 30 April 2011.

359 Sluyter, A. 1999. The making of the myth in postcolonial development: material- conceptual landscape transformation in Sixteenth-Century Veracruz. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89 (3). ———. 2002. Colonialism and landscape: postcolonial theory and applications. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Spaargaren, G., A. Mol, P.J., and H. Bruyninckx. 2006. Introduction: governing environmental flows in global modernity. In Governing environmental flows: Global challenges to social theory, eds. G. Spaargaren, A. Mol, P.J. and H. Bruyninckx, 1-38. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Spronk, S. 2010. Water and sanitation utilities in the Global South: Re-centering the debate on “efficiency”. Review of Radical Political Economics 42 (2):156-174. Squatriti, P. 1998. Water and society in early medieval Italy, A.D. 400-1000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Suárez Argüello, C. E. 1985. La política cerealera en la economía novohispana: el caso del trigo. Tlalpan, México: CIESAS (Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología, Social). Sundberg, J. 2011. Diabolic caminos in the desert and cat fights on the Rio: a posthumanist political ecology of boundary enforcement in the United States- Mexico borderlands. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101 (2):318-336. Swyngedouw, E. 1997. Power, nature, and the city. The conquest of water and the political ecology of urbanization in Guayaquil, Ecuador: 1880 - 1990. Environment and Planning A 29 (2):311-332. ———. 1999. Modernity and hybridity: nature, regeneracionismo, and the production of the Spanish waterscape, 1890–1930. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89 (3):443-465. ———. 2004. Social power and the urbanization of water: flows of power. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 2005. Dispossessing H2O: the contested terrain of water privatization. Capitalism Nature Socialism 16 (1):81-98. ———. 2006. Circulations and metabolisms: (hybrid) natures and (cyborg) cities. Science as Culture 15 (2):105-121. Swyngedouw, E., M. Kaika, and E. Castro. 2002. Urban water: a political-ecology perspective. Built Environment (1978-):124-137. Thomas, H. 2003. Rivers of gold: the rise of the Spanish Empire. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Thompson, E. P. 1971. The moral economy of the English crowd in the Eighteenth Century. Past and Present (50):76-136. Toledo, F. de. 1986[1568-1574]. Francisco de Toledo: disposiciones gubernativas para el Virreinato del Perú. Sevilla: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas: Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros de Sevilla. Treacy, J. M. 1994. Las chacras de Coporaque: andenería y riego en el valle del Colca. Lima, [Peru]: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Tsing, A. L. 2005. Friction: an ethnography of global connection: Princeton University Press.

360 Turner, B. L. 1989. The specialist-synthesis approach to the revival of geography: the case of cultural ecology. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 79 (1):88-100. Turner, M. D. 2009. Ecology: natural and political. In A companion to environmental geography, eds. N. Castree, D. Demeritt, D. Liverman and B. Rhoads, 181-197. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Turriano, J. 1996 [1576]. The twenty-one books of engineering and machines of Juanelo Turriano. Aranjuez (Madrid): Doce Calles. Urrutia Ceruti, J. 2006. La ciudad de Lima, la atarjea y el agua. Lima: Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Antropología e Historia del Perú. Urry, J. 2003. Global complexity. Malden, MA: Polity. Varon Gabai, R. 1998. Surco, Surquillo y Miraflores: la gente y sus recursos entre los siglos XVI y XX. In Arqueología, antropología e historia en los Andes: homenaje a María Rostworowski, eds. R. Varon Gabai and J. Flores, 443-470. Lima: IEP. Vassberg, D. E. 1978. Concerning pigs, the Pizarros, and the agro-pastoral background of the conquerors of Peru. Latin American Research Review 13 (3):47-61. ———. 1996. The village and the outside world in Golden Age Castile: mobility and migration in everyday rural life. Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press. Vega, G. de la. 1985 [1617]. Comentarios reales de los incas. Caracas: Biblioteca Ayacucho. Vera Nicolás, P. 2013. Murcia y el agua: Historia de una pasión. Asamblea Regional de Murcia, Real Academia Alfonso X El Sabio n.d. [cited 04/14/2013 2013]. Available from http://servicios.laverdad.es/murcia_agua/index.htm. Vergara Ormeño, T. 1995. Hombres, tierras y productos. Los valles comarcanos de Lima (1532-1650). Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Instituto Riva- Agüero. Walter, R. C., and D. J. Merritts. 2008. Natural streams and the legacy of water-powered mills. Science 319 (5861):299-304. Watson, A. M. 1983. Agricultural innovation in the early Islamic world: the diffusion of crops and farming techniques, 700-1100. New York: Cambridge University Press. Watts, M. J., . 1983. Silent violence: food, famine and peasantry in Northern Nigeria. Berkeley: University of California Press. Webster, D. 2005. Political ecology, political economy, and the culture history of resource management at Copán. In Copan: The history of an ancient Maya Kingdom, eds. E. W. Andrews and W. L. Fash, 33-72. Albuquerque: School of American Research. Yaeger, J., and D. A. l. Hodel. 2008. The collapse of Maya civilization: assessing the interaction of culture, climate, and environment. In El Niño, catastrophism, and culture change in ancient America, eds. D. H. Sandweiss and J. Quilter, 187-242. Washington, D.C: Dumbarton Oaks. Zimmerer, K. S. 2000. Rescaling irrigation in Latin America: the cultural images and political ecology of water resources. Cultural Geographies 7 (2):150-175. Zimmerer, K. S. 2010. Retrospective on nature–society geography: tracing trajectories (1911–2010) and reflecting on translations. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100 (5):1076-1094.

361 Zimmerer, K. S. 2011. The landscape technology of spate irrigation amid development changes: assembling the links to resources, livelihoods, and agrobiodiversity-food in the Bolivian Andes. Global Environmental Change 21 (3):917-934. Zimmerer, K. S., and T. J. Bassett. 2003. Approaching political ecology: society, nature, and scale in human-environment studies. In Political ecology: an integrative approach to geography and environment-development studies, eds. K. S. Zimmerer and T. J. Bassett, 1-25. New York: Guilford Press.

362 VITA

Martha G. Bell

Education Ph.D. Geography, The Pennsylvania State University, August 2013 M.S. Geography, University of Wisconsin-Madison, May 2007 B.A., Archaeological Studies; B.A., Geology & Geophysics, Yale University, May 2004

Select Publications Zimmerer, K.S. and M.G. Bell. 2013. An early framework of national land use and geovisualization: Policy attributes and application of Pulgar Vidal’s state- indigenous vision of Peru (1941–present) Land Use Policy 30: 305-316. Bell, M.G. 2012. Dissertation in Progress Report (invited): Maps, Management and Mills in Colonial Lima, Peru. (1532–1821). Imago Mundi 64(1): 129-132. Bell, M., and G. Ramón. 2011. Introducción. Informe Final, Proyecto “Arqueología hidráulica colonial: autoridades, infraestructura y redes políticas (Lima, 1535- 1796)”, Instituo Riva-Agüero.

Select Awards 2012 Best Student Paper Award, Latin American Specialty Group, American Association of Geographers. Paper titled: “The consolidation of colonial hydraulics: Cycles, flows and processions in municipal water management in 17th century Lima” 2011 Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Program 2011 Team Research Grant. Riva-Agüero Institute for Advanced Studies. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. (with G.Cogorno and G. Ramón), Project title: “Colonial Hydraulic Archaeology: Infrastructure, Authorities, and Power” 2010-12 Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant, National Science Foundation 2010 First Place, E. Willard Miller Award in Geography (for research proposal, Ph.D. level), Department of Geography, PSU 2010 J.B. Harley Research Fellowships in the History of Cartography, for study of maps of Colonial Peru, in map collections in the London area (February 2010) 2009 Outstanding Research Assistant, Department of Geography, PSU 2008 Grantee; European Science Foundation (ESF) Programme “Early Agricultural Remnants and Technical Heritage (EARTH)” Summer Field School – Proaza, Asturias, Spain 2008 Ann C. Wilson Graduate Research Award, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, PSU