THE PLACE AND THE PEOPLE 



9 



assumption that the age distribution for the In- 

 dians of 1936 was the same as that given in the 

 1921 census (Guatemala, 1924, Fourth Census, pt. 

 1, pp. 303-305) for the whole population of the 

 municipio. Table 3, based on an analysis of the 

 census made in 1936 and taking into consideration 

 the age distribution shown in table 2, reclassifies 

 the population, adding a distinction between 

 "Panajacheleno" and "Foreign" Indians. 



Table 2. — Indian population by sex and age ' 



1 Tlie census of 1921 fp. 1S6) divides the 1.145 Indians of the whole munic- 

 ipio into tnj3 males and 582 females. The preponderance of males uncovered 

 by my 1936 census Is probably the result of errors. I think that when sex was 

 doubtful, informants tended to assume the child was male. Or the error (if 

 such there Is) resulted from a careless misunderstandmg: iu some cases when 

 I was told that there were two tiijos in the house — and the names were not 

 given me — I may have put them down as male children when in fact one was 

 a female. In most cases I found out the names of people, but with infants it 

 was often dilTicult and I let the matter drop; I should not have. 



' All case*: in which information on sex is lacking fall into the infant class; 

 all are probably under 2 years of age. It would be possible from municipal 

 birth records to determine the exact age of most of the Indians. This long 

 and laborious task was not attempted, although the method is obviously 

 superior an J more exact than the indirect one employed. 



1 Including foreign domestics in Panajachel households, but not foreign 

 Indians married into them. 



The 780 Indians lived, in 1936, in 157 house- 

 holds; of these, 134 were Panajacheleno and 23 

 foreign. The average number of persons per 

 household was, therefore, 4.9, the Panajachelenos 

 averaging 5.1 and the foreign Indians, 4.0. Table 

 4 shows the actual distribution of households by 

 size. (The reason that 4 households are shown to 

 contain half-persons is that there were two biga- 

 mous men who divided their time between two 

 households each. For many purposes below 



these dual households are combined, and the 

 total number considered to be 132 rather than 134.) 

 The foreign Indians live for the most part on the 

 side of town west of the river; 21 of the 23 foreign 

 households, containing 79 of the 86 foreign Indians, 

 were located on the west side in 1936; and, besides, 

 21 of the 36 foreigners married into Panajacheleno 

 families lived west. In 1940 there were no foreign 

 families on the east side: one of the two had left 

 Panajachel, and the other had moved to the 

 other side. 



The households of the foreign Indians, who are 

 cut off from their relatives, contain for the most 

 part simple families (parents and children) ; but 

 the composition of Panajacheleno households 

 varies greatly. Only S3 of them were counted as 

 "sunple," and that number includes 17 in which 

 there were step-relatives and half-siblings. Of 

 the remainder, 36 may be considered natural 

 extensions of simple families, containing in addi- 

 tion married children and/or their offspring. 

 Finally, there were 15 households which included 

 additional relatives, most often the siblings of the 

 parents. 



There is some tendency in the families toward 

 patrilocality: for every case in which there was a 

 son-in-law living in the household, there were two 

 cases in which there was a daughter-in-law instead 

 or in addition. But all such cases together num- 

 bered but 27. Most young people set up inde- 

 pendent establishments soon after marriage. 



Table 4. — Distribution of Indians by households ' 



> This table is based on a household census, checked and rechecked in a 

 number of ways. It Is probably not 100-percent accurate because during the 

 months that elapsed in the gathering of the data, changes were continuously 

 occurring (births, deaths, changes of residence with marriage, etc.) and it is 

 difficult to know whether the picture is correct for any point of time. The 

 attempt was to get all of the data as of May 1, 1936, but since the last doubt 

 was not resolved until 18 months after that, it is obvious that it may not have 

 succeeded. 



' Not counting foreign servants as members of the households. 



