CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF SOUTHWEST GUATEMALA—McBRYDE 89 
CULTURAL UNITY OF MUNICIPIOS 
The grouping of people in Latin America (orig- 
inating in the Spanish reducciones, encomiendas, and 
repartimientos) in small areas, often naturally de- 
fined, has inevitably led to cultural integration on 
“township” basis. Toa large extent the municipios 
are the fundamental cultural units of Guatemala. 
Evidence of this fact is seen when one crosses the 
boundaries of these administrative units and ob- 
serves, as is so frequently the case, quite different 
costumes, crafts, religious group affiliations, some- 
time physical distinctiveness, and even certain el- 
ements of vocabulary. Usually these traits do not 
differ appreciably between two settlements within 
a municipio, but they ordinarily do vary from one 
municipio to another, unless they are related as ex- 
plained below. The little Lake community of 
Tzununa, for example, is nearly 3 miles (5 km., 
over an hour’s walk or canoe trip) removed from 
its high-perched cabecera (seat of the municipio), 
Santa Cruz, with rugged terrain intervening (pl. 45, 
d, e); yet the costumes and economies are practi-’ 
cally identical, with more of the old type prevailing 
in the former, a small, more isolated community (see 
p. 121, pl. 27). The other half dozen scattered hamlets 
(caserios) in this municipio, such as Jaibalito, have 
the same characteristics, which have been maintained, 
apparently since the Conquest, through contacts 
within the “township” area. 
That the original delimitation of these municipios 
by the Spaniards was based upon certain pre-ex- 
isting ethnic unity is quite likely, though it is prob- 
able that many of these lines were entirely arbitrary. 
The villages on the shores of Lake Atitlan, with 
houses clustered around a colonial Spanish Church 
—villages which were generally smaller concentra- 
tions of population prior to the Conquest (judging 
both from early literature and from archeology 1°°) 
—are good illustrations of settlements which un- 
doubtedly began as reducciones.1*1 
130 See p. 101, ftn. 153; Brinton, 1885, p. 191; also, Garcia Pelaez, 
1851S pal7ie 
131 One approach to the question of early post-Conquest groupings 
seems to lie in the matter of native designations for municipio inhabi- 
tants. For example, though inhabitants of the twin municipios of 
Nahuala and Santa Catarina Ixtahuacan are generally called ‘‘Nahual- 
efios’” in the Highlands, they are termed ‘‘Xankatales’” (from ‘“‘Santa 
Catalina’) in the Lowlands, and Tax (1937, pp. 433-434) points out 
that the Atitecos refer to one of them as “‘ax-catalina” (or ‘man of 
Catalina”). This immediately reflects two facts, in the history of the 
joint and culturally unified municipios: First, that they were united 
until the secession of Nahuala in 1865 (see McBryde, 1933, p. 103, 
ftn. 52); second, that the single name which they bore until that time 
was, as late as the latter 18th century, spelled by the old form ‘‘Santa 
Any attempt at treating the municipios as distinct 
cultural units must be undertaken with caution, for 
exceptions to such individuality are numerous. They 
may be summarized as follows: 
(A) In some instances two or more adjoining 
municipios are more or less similar, owing to the 
division of a larger unit of population into smaller 
ones. The municipios in such cases were formerly 
combined, politically and in some measure culturally 
as well. The following list of municipios was pre- 
pared in the field in 1935-36. In some cases, the 
only known similarity lies in Indians’ costumes, 
which serve therefore as a basis for grouping them 
together. A considerable degree of language simi- 
larity is known to exist also, and it is felt that these 
two traits are sufficient to merit tentatively indicating 
such adjoining municipios as being related culturally. 
Of the list presented here, three groups (Nos. 1, 3, 
and 4) have also been noted by Tax (as the excep- 
tions to the general rule of municipio individuality), 
who writes of them as follows: “. .. in each case 
the people of both municipios speak the same dialect, 
different from those of others, have the same patron 
saint and a common tradition of origin, have the 
same costume, and apply to themselves the same 
name” (Tax, 1937, p. 433). -Though we cannot speak 
with certainty concerning all of the municipios with 
regard to all-round cultural similarity, it is safe to 
assume in the case of most of them more traits in 
common than meet the eye and ear of the casual 
observer. The following municipios show similarities 
in dress, and probably are alike in other respects as 
well. 
Municipios in which costumes are similar 
(see also pl. 6) 
1. Santa Catarina Ixtahuacan—Nahuala; latter seceded, 
1865. 
2. Santiago Atitlan—Chicacao; 
1889, separated from Santiago. 
. Santa Maria Chiquimula—Patzité. 
. Santo Tomas Chichicastenango—Chiché. 
. Solola—San José Chacaya—Concepcion. 
. San Cristébal Totonicapan—San Andrés Xectil—San 
Francisco el Alto (and possibly ae strong similarity, 
but some minor distinctions. 
7. Huitan—Cajola—San Miguel Sigtiilé—San Juan Ostun- 
calco—Concepcion Chiquirichapa—San Martin Sacatepequez ; 
same women’s skirts and belts, huipils vary within certain 
latter founded March 5, 
nAm & WD 
Catalina’ (see Anon., Ms. 1778, p. 17, £. 236, which describes the town 
of Santa Catalina as ‘‘the richest town’”’ of the ‘‘Provincia de Atitlan, 
o Solola’’). In calling an Antofiero ‘‘ax-Palopé,’’ adherence to the old 
place name is also in evidence, for in early colonial times Polopé was 
the name of the village which today is San Antonio Palopé. 
