In the course of the nineteenth century, communal forms of land ownership almost disappeared from the Mexican countryside. According to the historia patria that is deeply ingrained in the popular imagination of Mexico, this was a fateful development, because during the long rule of Porfirio Díaz the demise of communal land tenure produced widespread landlessness and rural injustice, conditions that acted as catalysts for the Mexican Revolution. For the most part, scholarly interpretations have concurred with this assessment. Yet considering the significance generally attached to this historic transformation in patterns of land tenure, it is remarkable to discover that the process has not until now been analyzed in any detail. Although it is clear that the lands of many pueblos were privatized during the Porfiriato, there is still—one hundred years later—very little concrete understanding of how this happened and what it meant. More than two decades ago, David Brading called attention to the fact that “in general we know remarkably little about changes in land tenure during the Porfiriato.”1 With respect to the disentailment of pueblo lands, his assessment remains true today.Indeed, a review of the historical literature reveals a glaring paucity of research on this question. There is not a single published monograph devoted to the privatization of village lands, nor are there any reliable statistics— national or regional—that can at least suggest the scale, scope, and chronology of these developments. An extensive bibliographic search turns up approximately 15 articles—written over the course of four decades—directly concerned with one or another aspect of village disentailment.2 As a body of research, however, they do not amount to very much, since most consist primarily of general overviews of the relevant legislation and policies, and hence reveal little about what may have taken place. Only a handful of those articles—generally the most recent ones—contain research-based case studies (for example, on Sultepec, Ocoyoacac, Papantla, Zacapu, and San Juan Parangaricutiro), and these, while suggestive, are for the most part fairly brief. A number of book-length studies address the subject, though mostly just in passing, and even those are rather few.3 Given the importance of the subject, the amount of specific research it has thus far generated seems strikingly meager.Consider also the highly influential studies of land tenure in Mexico produced by a succession of American scholars between 1920 and 1950—the works of George McBride, Helen Phipps, Frank Tannenbaum, Eyler Simpson, and Nathan Whetten.4 They are still in many ways quite useful, and Tan-nenbaum’s oeuvre in particular remains an obligatory point of reference for historians seeking to examine the agrarian aspects of the revolution and the beginnings of state-led land reform. Yet when it comes to understanding the evolution of the process of communal disentailment—its chronology, its regional and local variations, and even its final outcomes—these studies offer scant guidance. They rely on isolated examples, selected anecdotes, and broad generalizations to produce a stark picture of village land expropriation that is at once intuitively compelling and largely unsubstantiated. These books undoubtedly have numerous merits, but they do not provide a satisfactory explanation of how, when, where, or why the lands of the pueblos were (or were not) privatized.Much the same can be said regarding the works of their Mexican counterparts. This assessment applies to the writings of authors as diverse as Wistano Luis Orozco, José L. Cossío, Fernando González Roa, José Covarrubias, Lucio Mendieta, José Valadés, and Jesús Silva Herzog, as well as to Daniel Cosío Villegas’s monumental Historia moderna de México, which devotes only 13 of its of to what González of these books has its and their to the understanding of rural is and their of the disentailment and expropriation of pueblo lands are not in and their have in they to be and as the only to be of that was and they the importance of broad and (for example, the and of the the of the at the of and they rely on (for example, the of and the number of in to their about what have happened with the lands of the In their of village land disentailment a to be this it is also that a number of these as well as the privatization of lands and that of communal village that were part and of the same Although it is true that in land were to village lands, this be taken to of these the two were one and the be to this the was a the a and that it was by the privatization of the has scholarly but the of pueblo disentailment remains in its this is true even in the case of which for one or another have been the of research, as and in or in an of the studies in that a clear picture of the process the of land disentailment and in these pueblos is still In of this of it is not to that general of the revolution and its these Mexican for an to on of the pueblo land chronology, regional and and but it is to the that to these and can only be by specific agrarian this as In it is that the privatization of village lands has not been the of is in since a with of land tenure and agrarian Mexican has long on rural and also because of the and for the of agrarian and to on an of what happened to village and their lands in the of the of the thus have that historians have to and how up their these of have almost was the the one the to be many and even historians have not to the process of communal land privatization up it is largely because they have not any to do since there is it has fairly general of how, and when the pueblos their lands, and of the of these the explanation in is at or in in of local on and about regional it is to be a or reliable of how and why According to this historical to produce the and of communal village lands was the of with its on the between and which in the of the particular the and in the of was the or of during the of Porfirio Díaz which at the of about legislation and to up village as well as to and A and final was the of the Mexican hence of the course of the Porfiriato, which about an in the of land and the of the and of those with of these and are said to have communal village This in a the these historical were quite and the of that has been from is but why have historians not been to or this by in particular of there is in the of the that or in a of about pueblos and their that have part of the For now at it is to these in the of one of a in the that pueblo or were and as well as in the privatization of village In were to and any at and thus the of communal only from one the very least in to any in the of on an as that the between those disentailment and those not have it was a the a of the is that the this was the of or not any of these true in one or many is in the an as however, they are their these have it to that the explanation of what happened to during the is not only but since the of the it was In this for at have or only the local or of an general in that why or de by a the of disentailment expropriation one a the one the in its the of their by the for from the the the and of with of and deeply with and to the of and or by most to the the pueblos or even the of their while the and by the of and This in the that has long been the for is as to the and of the it to about it when it comes to of is that there is little research on the of village land as the of this on or This to suggest how this to by and the of the about the of pueblos and their which as the during the the of a explanation of disentailment and its the was the about the of the pueblos de in the as well as in the long As be it was the of an between the of pueblo and an explanation of how disentailment and their the that this was a that was to is a in the of and an in In case it to be its is to attention to a in historical and and to provide an explanation for is not only but also in the of the and of village land this also to attention to the of many about the and of the of any of the of an there a of In this the is a what is a many be or and still is as as it is by a long of and of as or of which now not offer in this since the from which is is just as two broad one as or the as of is quite this once since and the same as it seems to the Mexico, the as a a of that and body of and that to be as to a and to the to which the or been to the village and to the In the of an was a particular on one of that a of or or to a or to a of the to in A pueblo was hence a a which was in by a with two were and the be to or at the extensive that in the of the the of that it to and As has the of this to was in and in the were not to be called In only de in but its was from the it to Although and devoted to to pueblo de of these in its only their In this with de and their were of the In the course of the and numerous were as many on the of the as a of the or by as part of their of these was to be the of the are called has of this with be In the was and in an to only to the obligatory de the that the In the and of to local This is to that the primarily as an of and not as an have to a and and over which the a of or were the which were to and as well as and lands to their In to these village lands in a of example, by land or and or by as well as from a succession of to the and of the lands that a to village lands as and de though in to to those these in the of the pueblo as a while it is true that the in was to to the of the and not to its as this not the fact that from a point of a and its were one and the same a with a In that a pueblo was its in how was is that these as part of an to and to their from those of these was the of a de on the that as a of were to and of or and from the a of pueblos their and was the of this largely In the of the these the specific to the pueblos was hence particular of their As be to the of this between forms of on the one and on the the of the of seems a or it is because historians and have to an understanding of the subject, one that the of pueblo and at the of its In the of pueblos is now generally to scholars than that of pueblos there are many compelling and historical this in that as it is not to of the of the even of pueblo now to be far are two for of legislation in for a the of Mexican it turns of the and that the Although the were by and the of two was their at least in and village the of for the most part still a from it was these two of the pueblos and village land from which the of the and the of to the of the the of pueblo was a of to the most influential interpretations as they of the evolution and of pueblos and were produced by José Luis Wistano Luis Orozco, and In this a was a Given their they generally importance to the aspects of pueblo and in most as one of the for the particular they were seeking to the pueblo was a of this it is to their a number of these in the decades the and thus the to in the disentailment and their for the only one in a or was an local and from the of Mexico, of about the of the disentailment on pueblos the of these for his and it be to what the years the in and of rural in Mexico and the of pueblos as the of which were in the of and in agrarian has a in the popular of rural as well as a of the have also to the pueblos as the of a it was not to the pueblos for a the of the for they remarkably little specific and this pueblos an of and the to was on two land disentailment and the of in national over the of disentailment in at the of the century, the in of de by and the a compelling in of the of land as a of and were the and which be as well as the and which be were taken up by the de with little In were in were to local and as the to the of his Mexican to in as the For two of the disentailment of a and the to the and In these the of how to the those to also and even though in they quite not any particular reference to but they to be as in ways to the privatization and as their disentailment also a part of the Mexican was by with forms of that the in a over disentailment that in the of the it was mostly in the and of about the of of and local the of the communal be These were and to the pueblo in the of to be from this of An of pueblos in this can be in the of and in the works of and of his as well as in the of the of In the pueblos in of a that the of this lands of the pueblos to be just the of the and for the same on the conditions of and on the of their to the of Mexico on the pueblo as an only For the most part, were as though they were a single of and were with and this be while and as the that the of was as the of to those was an in this the of at up for for the on by pueblo as well as their as the and in of land tenure, in the of the de the of on the of as the while local pueblo as generally the only produced a book-length of of the the of the for their of in to the that the communal the of a of which and the of were In the however, these were as that were by of the As in these disappeared with which to and and not been it was only to of in a the by many of In a years that while has not been the about a in that In the pueblo as a were on its to and was of only in far as pueblos not any as of during the and for most of the Porfiriato, the fact that the disentailment were at in many in In a this is not that those land the final demise of the that to the pueblos been as part of the the pueblos why about In that the two monumental of Mexico that were in the course of the a de by and México, by almost of the pueblos extensive historical oeuvre the of the in a of and and the and of and the that is there is to and that the pueblo may have once was now of the and the that to be was largely a of with a to this of was Wistano Luis published in A in to in the evolution of land legislation in Mexico to its in to that many of the and since and even of the most which a of been in was in widespread regarding the of an almost of the legislation that the of and and the de to a of for which is and as his undoubtedly was not to as a scholarly his the and of was also to that the of of these particular lands of the of land in the of a and was not only and but also since were and the only a of to have but in course it to be by many as the most and of the and of the land that their the was primarily in the the of the its a the of the the of the that to the A lands devoted of its to these in and this as an to on what was with the lands of the With the of the many the in of up communal the in many the also the in this to which on only the the or the over the of it was to that the their only to that to the which were also the as a of these were land and not this in from to forms in by a the of the and at the of the lands that were These lands thus up in the of in for a of or from a and at and that it was not only but also a to in of the pueblo lands because these were and even to the of which was to over in these of to on and of the the of the pueblos in a as they do at the and the process of village land that to or the pueblos not have been these amount to than a in only of the with the and of but a of As the to a the pueblo a rather subject, writings was on in the of the and of an and by one hundred of Mexico and not far from the with the of was the of of a local and the was in local and even as from in the was years an as a at the de in to be a since the it not to his in to once the a as well as as was his a by the of was the years in and and and Mexican and to a the de in Mexico since the in as part of its recent reform. the in a broad as and an as be in and for years at the which a is not clear why not or what for the though have that was to for a In in was as a to over his years as a in in and in the of Sultepec, a by for most of this As it turns the communal lands of many of these been and the that been to pueblo just the of that was as were and As a was to to and a of these which most were their has over a number of the that during those that these land on a a on A these in for a in the of been for and even published his in his studies at the was once the and his on A was in and to rule on a over the ownership of in which an was of the pueblo of San that the to the lands in to the pueblo as part of a in in not since the that pueblos and hence were not to his to by the as part of a with the his to the and the of of the which pueblos any In the his and the the as a in than a on to for a as and in de a on the of the but by the and in Mexico in with Luis in his and influential to in and an of the de this his In published an a of his de in the These were of what in to the of in the of the and it also of the of that his writings of his his to the and in the process of pueblo land of these deeply his understanding of rural In and of however, they do not his of the that and in particular the of to the of pueblos the as for and In to do it is also to examine diverse the which what in his Mexico and what about the historical which these recent to be This is a not only by the of the but also by the paucity of research on these now is only a to for the most part, to or of of to his For the of they may be four the of and the of and the historical of and the literature on Mexican and be in most of his was by the of and his at the in a in the of in the of and in the of as a the of in this was a even that that and but his to it to know what that is A little called de was to and of and Mexican the as the of of the and to primarily a in the that on as of his of the as an of development, his on the of and his a as has of that of was in than in its of and the same was taken with of the of evolution and its to the understanding of the of in a that was in and attention on the of their the of This to on those in which his works to they do in this with evolution also to of it to the evolution of In a number of of and of A and however, from the works of a and and the of evolution in interpretations in In two of to have as was the which that is a and of by the of and In the patterns of those in the historic evolution of the to which they at and the as the to of the historical of Mexico as a and of the that a part of also the that and one and the on a which to how have generated thus the of in the of these in the of specific conditions in the evolution of In this to the of those that are generally called the of In the provide the one of most that and that those a particular to what is called have an on and on and has long been the that the of the historical of or to have his has been to a of and by the studies on the of published by the during the of the nineteenth In the of the the of a single for the the of a on the of that a its and its particular of and thus not be to in the of for and this and were the of of evolution a and historical was the which the true of be these to the of his works of in particular and the the of is that most of his studies of were in and as well a There is however, that understanding of the between and as be in the case of the a remarkable to what was by the historical with respect to its of be to just as with Mexico and with how and when the historical to its Mexico is a that has to be is quite that with of these the writings of or which were well in Mexican be studies of de and scholars by may have these works in on his or his at the de it seems clear that an of it is also that was with the long and with the of and In the writings of and Orozco, as well as diverse works on from to his and was a very his his his and his on to produce a of Mexican in which the as a a and the its many be as a and to pueblos of a that their the that to with an of the of and the of in the of that were the to understanding in the case of this the of the of a to in the of in of and with respect to their In was the to in on the conditions by the and hence the the of evolution that any In for of In Mexico, the of the land
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 79 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.