LAND OWNERSHIP AND PRACTICES 



79 



sons (Jos6, Lorenzo, Juan) and four daughters 

 (Cresencia, Francisoa, Basilia, Gloria) who could 

 have looked foi-ward to a rich inlieritance. But of 

 a sudden Julian's fortunes turned and in 8 years he 

 lost literally all that had taken generations to 

 accumulate. In 1926 he sold Tzampetey (No. 14) 

 and invested in cattle. The enterprise failed in 

 some way. In 1928 his wife sickened, and he spent 

 a lot of money in a vain attempt to cure her, even 

 taking her to the hospital in distant Quezal- 

 tenango. On her death he began to drink. He 

 opened a tavern and lost interest in his farming. 

 He let bis laborers go. He entertained his Ladino 

 friends, took up with a woman, became estranged 

 from his sons, and began to run up debts. One 

 piece of land after another was pawned to Ladinos 

 and eventually lost. In 19.36 son Juan bought the 

 last piece (the house site) to keep it in the family; 

 there Julian lived in 1936, sobered but not em- 

 bittered, earning his living as an entrepreneur on a 

 small scale. He died in 1942, leaving nothing to 

 his children. Jose (an industrious worker) bought 

 land after his marriage, with the aid of his wife's 

 inheritance. Juan (vvho had gone to school in the 

 city as a child) is not a member of the local com- 

 munity, though he owns the home site. Lorenzo is 

 a professional soldier in the Capital. Cresencia is 

 married to a Ladino and lives on the coast; Basilia 

 was married to a local Indian, but she died re- 

 cently. Antonia is married to a local Indian and 

 they have become medium-rich. Gloria, the 

 youngest, is a servant in a Ladino household. 



SUMMARY 



In spite of the free market in land there is clearly 

 a family feeling about it. If it must be pawned or 

 sold, it is desirable that it go to a close relative — 

 especially one who would fall heir to the land if it 

 were not alienated. One should not leave his chil- 

 dren landless, but conscience in the matter appears 

 to be salved if the heirs arc permitted to buy the 

 land. This is a method by which aged parents 

 obtain support from their children when they are 

 no longer al)le to work. The parent demands 

 money from a son or daughter due to get the land 

 with the threat to sell it if the money is not paid. 

 A bargain price frequently indicates that the trans- 

 action is not purely a commercial one. In one case 

 when an old widow demanded support from a son, 

 arguing that he was using her land, and the son 

 pointed out that he had bought the land, she 



retorted that she had sold it to him very cheaply. 

 This practice does not so much indicate unwill- 

 ingness to support the aged (probably no Pana- 

 jachel Indian would let his parents starve) as a 

 desire on the part of parents to justify demands 

 less on the ground of filial duty than of moral or 

 legal, even commercial obhgation. In the same 

 way the heir who has supported his parents and 

 paid for their burial has greater claim to their land 

 than his brothers and sisters. Likewise, the son 

 who stays at home and helps his father work the 

 land and hence buy more land is entitled to a 

 greater part of the inheritance than one who works 

 for himself. This is one reason why daughters, 

 who more frequently than not marry away, get 

 less of the family land than their brothers. But all 

 of the children, including the daughter or son who 

 has lived independently, are considered entitled 

 to some of their parents' land. 



The following generalization of rules of in- 

 heritance is all that the data permit.^ All per- 

 sonal property is inherited. E.xcept for the 

 clothing in which the l)ody is dressed, nothing is 

 destroyed at death. All privately owned land is 

 wholly alienable, but it is thought good to keep 

 it for one's children if possible. The children are 

 all entitled to a share, but sons — because they 

 generally remain with the parents to work the 

 land — to larger shares than daughters. The 

 eldest son ideally becomes the head of the house- 

 hold when the parents die, and usually gets a 

 larger share. The portions of yoimg siblings, and 

 especially of girls imtil their marriage, are given 

 to the eldest son to hold in trust for them. He 

 frequently takes advantage of them, but in any 

 event he is not expected to turn over to them the 

 profits of the land — only their shares of the orig- 

 inal land itself — on the theory that he is support- 

 ing them meanwliile. Sons and less frequently 

 daughters are sometimes given all or part of their 

 inheritance some time after marrying. The 

 practice is not by any means always accompanied 

 by quarreling. Thereafter they may also buy land 

 from their parents (as well as from others). 

 A surviving widow usually keeps control of all 



" To learn more about the rules of Inheritance one could obtain the history 

 of the ownership of each piece of Pannjachel land for several generations liack. 

 Or. short of that di/licult task, one could with data at hand relate the distri- 

 bution of lands owned by the Indians to their genealogies. The result of 

 such a formidable task would be subject to much error, since it cannot be 

 assumed that two brothers owning adjoining lots in s district where other 

 members of their family also own land have both inherited rather than bought 

 ttie land. 



