CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF SOUTHWEST GUATEMALA—McBRYDE IW 
Central American farming (‘‘the planting of crops in 
temporary clearings,’ Cook, 1909, p. 308) is quite 
misleading as far as most of the southwestern Guate- 
mala Highland region is concerned. So thoroughly 
worked is the soil, and so deeply furrowed with the 
broad hoe, that such a paradoxical term as “hoe plow- 
ing” is necessary to describe it (pl. 30, b, c). The 
hand implements of the Indians of this region are used 
with even greater effectiveness than a plow in prepar- 
ing “contour” furrows. Yet fields so laboriously 
worked are “milpa’”’ to them, and to anyone who visits 
the area; and hardly fitting the definition implied by 
the statements that “milpa agriculture appears well 
adapted to the needs of very primitive peoples, since 
only a minimum of labor and equipment is required. 
The ax or the cutlass is the only tool that is neces- 
sary” (Cook, 1909, p. 308). That this definition of 
milpa is not fully applicable as far as the southwest 
Highlands are concerned is clear from the following 
comparison: “The word that corresponds to milpa 
in Peru and neighboring countries of South America 
is ‘chacra,’ but this is applied also to lands that are 
terraced and tilled continuously in the higher valleys” 
(ibid., p. 308, ftn. 2). The implication here is that 
if land is cultivated continuously it is not “‘milpa 
agriculture.” Though Highland milpa land in Guate- 
mala today is not elaborately terraced,® it is contour- 
furrowed, and much of it is tilled as continuously as 
that of Peru. “Chacra”’ in Peru is applied to any 
cultivated field, not necessarily maize, and the term 
is also applied to a small farm; sometimes even to the 
amount of land included:in a family subsistence farm. 
There is not an individual in the entire area who 
would not call his cornfield “milpa” 2° (except when 
speaking in his own dialect), as that is the one 
universal word for it, there being no general syno- 
nym. If a writer wishes to refer to “digging-stick 
culture,” it would be preferable that it be done in 
those terms to avoid confusion. 
That the word “milpa” was applied in colonial 
times to other than cornfields has already been 
brought out. Many 16th-century chroniclers wrote 
of “myllpas de cacao,’ though perhaps more com- 
monly they were called “heredades.” Whether the 
Indians themselves used “‘milpa” in connection with 
cacaotales (cacao groves) is open to question. The 
® Distinct terraces, 3 or 4 feet wide, are to be seen near Totonicapan, 
in fields cultivated at the present time; ancient, stone-faced terraces 
are common in parts of Chiapas, notably near Ocosingo. 
10“‘Milpa’’ is also used to designate individual maize plants, or the 
maize considered collectively; often even “‘milpas” is heard as a plural 
when the plants are referred to. 
654162—47_3 
Indians of Atitlan in their letter to the King (Anon., 
Ms. 1584) spoke of “heredades de cacao,” yet even 
for maize, “milpa” was not mentioned, but rather 
“sementeras de maiz.” The Spaniards so often took 
names and words just as used by the Indians that 
their terminology presents fairly good evidence of 
native parlance. Today, any cornfield is a milpa, but 
in order to be a milpa it must have maize, and not 
some other field crop such as wheat, beans, or barley. 
It may have extraneous crops interplanted, however, 
especially beans, vetch, squashes, rice, sweetpotatoes, 
garlic, and sometimes maguey. Pure field plots of 
other crops than maize are generally referred to as 
surco or de suelo (e. g., beans: frijoles de suelo). 
HIGHLAND MILPAS 
Clearing and rotation.—A 16th-century Vera 
Paz report states that new clearings were made in 
the forest every 2 years (limit of yield in one place), 
after which the land was abandoned for 10 or 15 
years (Anon., Ms. 1574 b, p. 8, f. 94). 
In the Highlands today the roza, as the process of 
clearing and burning is termed, is generally confined 
to new fields prepared on land which has been idle 
long enough for a regrowth oi bushes or trees. The 
same field is usually under cultivation for a number 
of years, until the yield declines excessively, then the 
plot is left fallow for 5 or 10 years or more, depend- 
ing upon edaphic conditions. At San Andrés 
Semetabaj, where there is good ash soil, though not 
so good as the decomposed lavas of Santiago, 5 years 
was said to be the limit of good yield, with virtual 
exhaustion and poor harvest at the end of 15 or 20 
years. At nearby Panajachel, 5 years was also given 
as the limit of good yield; land is left then to go back 
to “bush” for 5 or more years. In that area, beans 
are sometimes interplanted," and annual alternation 
of beans and maize is common. At Santiago it was 
stated that about half the natives interplant beans 
with maize (and some pole beans). In the higher 
milpas there, beans are not planted, and good maize 
yields are said to be limited to 3 or 4 years,’ after 
which the land may be left fallow for 15 or 20 years, 
when vegetation returns. Lower down, land (much 
of it alluvial) is reported to be good for annual 
planting for 10 or 15 years, after which beans are 
Bo ens ve 
1 ‘This practice was said to be objectionable at San Andrés, because 
the vine-burdened cornstalk offers more wind resistance and falls more 
easily. Beans are usually planted in special fields at San Andrés. 
13 This discrepancy as compared with north-side estimates of 5 years, 
even on poorer soil, may reflect the fact that Atitecos, having more 
good land per capita, can afford to shift milpas oftener. 
