LAND OWNERSHIP AND PRACTICES 



81 



in recent years. From 1935 to 1938 the average 

 number of pa^vnings of Indian lands was about 

 eight per year and tlie number of redemptions 

 about four. In 1936 the number of contracts 

 generally knowm to be in force was 38, the oldest 

 of them dating from about 1930. Thus more 

 than 11 per cent^" of the 330 Indian-owned lots 

 were wholly or partly in pawm in 1936. Of the 

 38, 27 were pawned to other resident Indians, 

 5 to Indians of other towns, 5 to resident Ladinos, 

 and 1 to the author. Lands pawmed totaled 

 about 20.6 acres (table 13) including more truck 

 land than coffee. Indians own twice as much 

 truck as coffee land, but pawn almost 2}2 times 

 as much, for two reasons: (1) The lender prefers 

 truck land, which brings him more income than 

 colYce land and his bargaining power is gi'cater 

 than that of the borrower with a sudden need; 

 (2) many Indians sell their coffee crops to Ladinos 

 long before the harvest as a way to get money 

 without borrowing; nobody is likely to take on 

 pawn land which will yield nothing for over a year. 



Table 13. — Pawned land 



In all cases that Indians paAvn land to Ladinos 

 (I have none of the reverse) a term of years is 

 written mto the contract. Among Indians alone 

 the duration of the contract often is "until the 

 money is repaid." Of 24 cases on which there is 

 information to the point, only 13 include a time 

 limit Of these, five are for 4 years, four for 

 4 years, two for 3, and one each for 1 antl for 7 

 years. Informants have said that the larger the 

 amount, the longer the time; and that when the 

 pawner is very poor, no time limit is set; but the 

 cases do not clearly support them. It should be 

 repeated that since Indians do not foreclose, time 

 limits have little significance. 



The pawning of land is not a sign of poverty, 

 only that there are no liquid assets in time of 

 emergency. But Indians who have pawTied their 

 land are often m process of losing it, and are 



w In terms of value, about 8 percent. 



meanwhile losmg an important soui'ce of income. 

 They are becoming poorer. Facts about land 

 pawniing are th(^refore significant in discussion of 

 wealth mobility in Land and Wealth (pp. 192-193). 



LAND RENTING 



Of the several ways in which Indians obtain use 

 of houses or land belonging to others, renting is the 

 most obvious. Renting of houses, however, is not 

 common. There were in 1936, 33 families occupy- 

 ing houses that did not belong to them, and of 

 these only 6 paid rent, 5 of them immigrant 

 artisans who rented houses in towTi, following 

 (as they did in other n^spects) Ladino custom, and 

 the sLxth an immigrant woman who worked as a 

 day servant in Ladino homes and rented a house 

 for herself and her family. The rental was 

 probal)h' no more than a dollar a month in any 

 case.*^' Nine of the remaining 27 who paid no rent 

 lived in houses furnished by their employers, the 

 remainder in "borrowed" houses, 4 of them rather 

 permanenth^, and 9 occasionally changing their 

 residences. In addition 5 landowiimg families 

 lived not on their own land Init in their own 

 houses built on Itorrowed land. The remaming 

 122 families lived on land that they owned. 



Agricultural land is much more frequently 

 rented. In 1936 only 5 families used land 

 furnished rent-free by their emploja-rs. On the 

 other hand, .50 families (including 4 landless 

 families and 3 who owned land but did not live 

 on it) regularly rented land. In 1930, the Indian 

 community rented from outsiders about 17.5 acres 

 of hill milpa to add to their own 94 acres, and about 

 12 acres of delta truck land to add to their 78.5. 

 Coffee is never rented, since the annual crop is 

 almost pure profit. 



Most commonly there is an annual cash rental 

 on a specified piece of land, giving sole rights to it. 

 Such agreements are generally verbal. Frequent- 

 ly the rental is paid not in advance, but throughout 

 the year or when the harvest is in. In at least one 

 1937 case the rental fee was worked off. Hill 

 land, used only in the rainy season, is valual)le in 

 the off-season only for pasture; since both the 

 owner and the renter welcome the fertilizing effects 

 of such use, it is an academic question whether the 



" In 1940 we rented a good little house from an Indian for $1 a montli, and 

 certainly overpaid. We also rented a Ladino"s house for $5 (in 1937); Indian 

 friends tliouglit that we were paying $2. which they considered outrageously 

 hiRh. 



