Anne Reid
See methodological note at the end of the work.
To speak of the agricultural production form known as chinampas is to speak of the history of Mexico City. There is evidence pointing to their origin about 1500 to 2000 years ago; later they represented one of the main supports of the Aztec Empire. This agroecosystem, based on a unique cultivation method, optimized the exploitation of environmental resources in the Valley of Mexico, such as its hydrology, topography, and especially the use of water and soils. After the conquest, these elements became the subject of conflicts for their control and use, both agrarian and between Mexico City and its surroundings. Finally, in 1980, after centuries of supplying the city, the chinampas of Iztapalapa disappeared to build the new Central de Abastos (Supply Center) of Mexico City.
This work is part of a project to rescue and disseminate the history of chinampas. First, a description of their technology is made, particularly noting significant historical aspects in their development, ending with an analysis of their disappearance.
The chinampas represent one of the most intensive and productive cultivation methods created by humans. Artificially built on swamps—stagnant water is essential for their operation—the distribution of chinampas is designed to capture moisture. The absorption system largely eliminates the need to water crops. It uses fertile soil, and organic fertilizers are products of the same ecosystem: mud taken from the bottom of canals and dried water lilies, sometimes mixed with cow manure. The use of seedbeds maximizes the use of time and space. Throughout this intensive cultivation system, only manual techniques are required.
The productivity of chinampas is very high. It is estimated that corn production from the chinampas that supplied Tenochtitlan reached three tons per hectare. Currently, according to Sanders (1957), the average yield obtained in corn cultivation is 4,000 kg per hectare.
In the chinampas of Iztapalapa, they mainly produced corn, beans, green chile, tomato (cultivated since pre-Hispanic times), and artichoke, lettuce, cabbage, carrots, onion, radishes (introduced from Europe), as well as herbs like rosemary and cilantro, and flowers like poppies (until their cultivation was prohibited). There was also hunting and fishing in the canals and chinampas: carp, cuiles, ducks, and birds like chichicuilotes.
In his study on the origins and nature of chinampas, and their relationship with pre-Hispanic cultures of central Mexico, Coe (1964) affirms that "...those who built Teotihuacan also created the chinampas."
Armilla (1970) investigated, within the framework of landscape archaeology, the role of humans in shaping the landscape of the Valley of Mexico during the 2000 years before the conquest. He presents evidence of the existence of chinampas several centuries before Christ. He suggests that subsequently, the rate of swamp utilization decreased between the 1st century and 1200 AD, probably due to hydrographic changes in the basin. The peak of chinampas occurred between 1400 and 1600.
Both Armilla and Coe handle the thesis that chinampas were the support of the Aztec Empire. Coe describes how the Aztecs adopted the chinampa system that already existed on the shores of the lake and characterizes Tenochtitlan as a city of chinampas. Armilla estimates, for this time, a total of 120 km² of reclaimed swamps, equivalent to 900 hectares of productive soil. It is possible that the vegetables from these chinampas provided food for about 100,000 people.
The chinampa zone was a gigantic hydraulic system based on lake drainage and water management. In the 15th century, Netzahualcóyotl, king of Texcoco, built a system of dams and canals. He supervised the construction of an enormous dike separating the saltwater of Lake Texcoco from the freshwater of La Laguna. The dike measured about 12 kilometers, and 20,000 men worked on its construction. It protected Tenochtitlan from floods and ensured agriculture in the chinampas to the southeast of La Laguna.
The chinampas of Iztapalapa benefited from this work, which complemented the dams, causeways, aqueducts, and canals of this Culhua-Mexica settlement; Bataillon (1972) describes their pattern of environmental conservation, again recognizing the extraordinary productivity of the chinampas. He argues that the chinampas encompassed the domestic economy and the urban economy as a whole.
Iztapalapa was one of the main Culhua communities in the 12th century (Castillo, 1983), conquered by the Mexicas around 1430. At this time, it had special importance because the New Fire ceremony was celebrated every 52 years on the Cerro de la Estrella (Star Hill).
When the Spanish arrived, Iztapalapa had about 10,000 inhabitants, who populated a city with palaces and a botanical garden for ornamental and medicinal plants. In 1521, after the resistance of the inhabitants, it was conquered and almost destroyed by Hernán Cortés's army, with around 5,000 dead. During the first years of Spanish domination, it lost more than two-thirds of its population, and by 1580, there were fewer than 3,000 people living in Iztapalapa.
After the conquest, the elements that form the basis of the chinampa ecosystem, water and land, became critical points of agrarian and urban conflicts for the following 400 years.
The agroecosystem of the Valley of Mexico represented an obstacle to the urban development model of the Spanish.
Many of Tenochtitlan's canals were filled in to allow traffic of animal-drawn vehicles, leaving canoes to the indigenous people (Castillo, 1983). In the mid-16th century, works began for the drainage of Mexico City, and with it, a continuous drying of the Lake.
A century later, there is evidence of a significant loss of moisture in the area of Iztapalapa, whose population barely reached about 500 inhabitants (Nolasco, 1981). By the 19th century, the ecosystem had long been unbalanced, and the chinampa area of the Valley of Mexico was reduced to a fraction of its previous size (Armillas, 1971).
Iztapalapa was one of the key points of the Chalco-Xochimilco-Texcoco lake system. From this, the chinampa farmers were affected by disputes about changes in the course of waters and by drainage projects. During the 19th century, these conflicts between the peasants of the town of Iztapalapa and the authorities or hacienda owners were resolved almost always in favor of the hacienda owners, who advocated for the passage of water over their properties or giving priority to saving Mexico City from floods (Castillo, 1983).
In 1900, the large drainage works of Lake Texcoco further lowered the water level; only chinampas in the north of the town of Iztapalapa were preserved. By 1938, the lake was completely dried up, and the area of the chinampas of Iztapalapa was reduced even more (Nolasco, 1981).
At the beginning of the century, despite the reduction of the chinampa area, Iztapalapa, Betacalco, and Xochimilco still supplied the entire city with agricultural products.
According to testimonies from chinampa farmers, high productivity was maintained due to the springs in Iztapalapa (in what are now the streets of Gavilán, Moctezuma, and Hidalgo).
In 1910, despite the good quality and abundance of harvests, most of the production was not utilized because the city was under siege due to the Revolution, and products could not be taken to market for sale. People who had cattle were throwing away approximately 100 liters of milk per day, and shortly after opted to make cheese with this milk.
Products were sold in the Jamaica market, and until 1940, they were transported in canoes or chalupas through the National Canal known by some as "el Arquito." At this time, there was a gate that opened at four in the morning to let people pass who were going to sell their products at the Jamaica market.
Until the mid-1940s, the canals of La Viga, Tezontle, and Apatlaco flowed into the Jamaica market and were the main means of transport and distribution of agricultural production from the chinampa farmers.
Then the rivers and canals disappeared due to the drying of Lakes Texcoco and Chalco, the piping of rivers, and the depletion of springs (the drilling of wells in the '40s again lowered the water level in the chinampas), contributing to the swampy soil becoming saline (Castillo, 1983).
Until 1940, the growth of Iztapalapa was slow. From this date, it experienced incredibly accelerated growth; so much so that in 1970, the year of the chinampa expropriation, the municipality's population was 20 times larger than in 1940 (Nolasco, 1981). This population of 550,980 people in 1970 doubled again by 1980, the year of eviction, and currently, a population of more than one and a half million inhabitants is estimated (DDF, 1982).
With this accelerated growth, the arrival of migrants, and changes in land use from agricultural to industrial or residential, along with the disappearance of water, there were changes in the occupational structure of chinampa families. Castillo (1983) analyzes the deterioration of agricultural activities and their progressive replacement by urban activities (transformation and services) in Iztapalapa between 1930 and 1950.
Codeur (1979), in his justification for the expropriation of the chinampa areas, mentions the accelerated process of change in Iztapalapa from its agricultural status to an urban one, and that it was one of the last extensive territorial opportunities in possession of the Federal District, with an extension of 327 hectares.
This section is based on an analysis of writings from the DDF (Department of the Federal District) and the press, and testimonies from former chinampa farmers.
In April 1970, the presidential decree was published declaring the construction of a Supply Center for Mexico City to be of public utility. In the area expropriated for this purpose were the chinampas of Iztapalapa.
According to testimonies from former chinampa farmers, the authorities of the Iztapalapa delegation announced the expropriation in the plaza in front of the delegation. They argued the benefits of the Supply Center, clarifying that chinampa farmers would be compensated for their lands and that they would also be given other lands so they could continue with their productive activity.
From 1970 to date, the matter of expropriation and compensation has not been resolved. Of the approximately 1650 heads of families, about 200 of them still have not been compensated.
In 1970, the year of expropriation, the first offer was 15 pesos per square meter. By then, the DDF recognized that the expropriated properties were mostly farmlands and that most of the peasants lacked properly legalized titles because the lands had been transmitted by inheritance or sale.
A year later, the value was increased to 20 pesos per square meter, and in 1973, recognizing that "they are valuable cultivation lands and that it will be very difficult for those affected to acquire others of the same quality to continue their activities since they constituted their only source of work," the compensation was increased to 40 pesos per square meter, plus an urbanized lot with a surface area of 120 square meters in the southern area of the town of Iztapalapa.
This represented the best offer of the 15 years of negotiation; it would never be improved. Moreover, in 1978, a unit value of 20 pesos per square meter was applied again. It was not until 1980 that the previous agreement was ratified, and 40 pesos per square meter was paid again. In this same year, the eviction of the chinampa area was carried out to begin the construction of the Supply Center, about ten years after the expropriation decree.
The eviction was a violent act, carried out in the early morning by the mounted police, destroying crops and buildings. There were even "disappeared" persons; for example, one of the leaders was taken shortly before the eviction and released some ten or twelve days later. With the eviction, the entry of chinampa farmers was prohibited until they obtained a credential at the delegation.
When the expropriation decree appeared, a total of about 1,650 affected chinampa families were calculated, organized in the Association of Chinampa Farmers of Iztapalapa. Upon learning of the decree, there was an agreement to file an injunction, arguing the productivity of the area and the existence of other appropriate places for the construction of the Supply Center.
They were united during the first two years until two leaders signed with the authorities the withdrawal of the injunction, accepting the compensation of 40 pesos per square meter, along with a lot or 50,000 pesos. At this moment, the unity breaks. It seems that a minority accepts this compensation while the majority sees it as a betrayal on the part of the leaders and continues fighting. They divide, however, into three groups with different objectives: while some fight to defend their lands and continue working them, others seek to obtain greater compensation.
There are still about 200 chinampa farmers who have not accepted the compensation of 40 pesos per square meter.
On November 21, 1982, the day the new Supply Center was inaugurated, the value of the land was estimated at 70,000 pesos per constructed meter. By then, the cost figure for the new Supply Center oscillated between 16 and 18 billion pesos for the largest and most expensive Supply Center in the world. According to a subsequent audit, it appears that it really cost 46 billion pesos, financed largely by loans from foreign banks. Currently, the DDF is paying millions of pesos in interest daily.
There are still chinampa farmers who have not received compensation for the expropriation of the chinampas of Iztapalapa in 1970.
To answer this question, we will summarize the characteristics that allow and justify their existence and survival. Then we review those factors that would lead to their destruction:
The agroecosystem of the chinampas is recognized as one of the most productive in the world. Traditionally, they optimized the management of natural resources in the Valley of Mexico. Using manual techniques with artisanal tools, they achieved continuous use of the soil without depleting or contaminating it, producing a wide variety of crops with high nutritional value to supply Mexico City. As an agroecosystem, the chinampas were self-sufficient, capable of sustaining themselves for an indeterminate time. The evidence supporting this assertion is their 2000 years of existence.
In 1980 in Iztapalapa, however, the chinampas disappear. Throughout their history, the chinampas depended on their relationship with environmental conditions on one hand and socio-political conditions on the other:
In pre-Hispanic times, optimal exploitation of natural resources facilitated political-urban growth, and agricultural production was closely linked with the urban economy (Castillo, 1983). After the conquest, conflicts arose between the city and the chinampas. Over the centuries, the city imposed itself to protect citizens from floods and supply them with water—hence the drying of canals and lakes and the piping of springs. Later, not only did the city leave the chinampas without water, but it also contaminated the still existing waters and soils with industrial effluents and sewage. Recent urban transformation also implies changes in land use: thus, agricultural lands are converted into urban land for housing, industry, and commerce. The natural resources essential for chinampa production are gradually depleted.
In this way, the chinampa farmers found themselves trapped between the deterioration of environmental conditions on one hand and the pressure of urban expansion on the other. They faced the reduction of the value of their lands in terms of their agricultural productivity and simultaneously the increase in their value as urban land.
Added to the change in the value and potential use of the land, the chinampa farmers faced occupational changes in the area of Iztapalapa (from agricultural to services or industrial). Peña (1980) studied the gradual abandonment of agricultural work in a chinampa area of Xochimilco. He found that while chinampa productivity measured in yields per area is very high, it is very low in terms of invested work, and second, comparing production costs with profits due to the low and unstable prices of perishable products when entering the distribution and marketing system. Thus, non-agricultural wage jobs can offer greater security and income.
For all the above, the answer about the fate of the chinampas is that, despite their internal capacity to sustain themselves, they have always depended on the relationship with society as a whole. Therefore, the disappearance of the chinampas of Iztapalapa became inevitable within the urban transformation experienced. The chinampas could not survive a process of "development" that struck them environmentally, commercially, and urbanly: it superimposed the interests of the city over the needs of agricultural production, promoted industrialization without controlling pollution, produced urban expansion without planning, and was characterized by allowing double speculation both with urban land and with perishable products (that is, affecting the alternative uses of chinampa lands).
It is ironic, or rather contradictory, that the chinampa farmers, victims of this development process, in which they were not considered by the State, finally lose their lands when the State promotes its project of "modernization of supply," a great "development pole," an example of planned urban development.
There exists the possibility of guaranteeing the continuity of the chinampas and their contribution to the city's supply but within another conception of development. In this case, the environment is protected, and the chinampas form part of ecological reserves, productive green areas set apart from the urban land market, which complement recreational green areas.
It is important to analyze participation in the struggle for compensation given that the chinampa community was quite united before the expropriation, but they divided into several groups during the last ten years.
First, we must characterize the chinampa community. Among the chinampa farmers, there was a strong identity with the land and productive activity (Almaraz and Hernández, 1984), and with their neighborhoods as residential and cultural spaces (López, 1984). The chinampas are small properties, and the productive unit is the family.
The networks of kinship and exchange that characterized the organization of work are reflected in the spatial distribution of housing. Castillo (1983) found mixed surnames among the inhabitants of the eight neighborhoods of Iztapalapa. Many families lived in a set of family neighborhoods (between two and six families), sharing a patio, a pattern that corresponds to pre-Hispanic residential and social organization models. There is still a strong identification with the neighborhood of residence, its saint, and its festivals, and there are still stewards. Each neighborhood has the festival of its saint, and in addition, they all celebrate Holy Week together, the "Lord of the Cave," and an annual pilgrimage to the Villa de Guadalupe, where they bring portals of flowers and vegetables (López, 1984).
It seems that the position adopted in the face of expropriation depended on a series of factors, starting with the relationship with the land. There were already occupational changes among some chinampa farmers, especially among young people. Therefore, there was not the same identity and commitment to the land between wage earners in industry, services, and commerce, and among agricultural workers. Sometimes it implied divisions between members of the same family.
In parallel, there were differences in the perception and expectations of the future of the chinampas. Some claim the viability of the chinampas and the right to continue working them; others already saw their disappearance as inevitable.
If a critical factor for understanding the various ways in which expropriation was faced was the land, that is, the individual's relationship with it and the perception of its destiny as an agroecosystem, the other fundamental factor was the State, its intervention, and the representations of its power.
Throughout the negotiations about the expropriation, the authorities have achieved a policy of divide and conquer and of attrition. On one hand, they have always offered very low compensations. Then they recognize that many chinampa farmers lack documents due to the antiquity of inheritances or due to purchase contracts, announce that they accept other types of verification, but they take advantage of the insecurity created among some of the chinampa farmers to pressure them to accept the compensation in the face of the risk of not receiving anything. Also, the chinampa farmers denounce the presence of settlers who received compensation without being chinampa farmers. In addition, there was the "betrayal" of certain leaders who sold out and the repression of others who continued fighting in defense of the lands. González (1984) compared the representations of the power and control of the State and of the chinampa organization between compensated and non-compensated persons. Typically, the compensated argued that nothing can be done against the State:
"No matter how much we had united, we could not against the government," "yes: they brought the mounted police, and what could we do against them?" "they would have killed us if we face the police, they were armed, and we with what?" "those who would not have died would be taken prisoner, it would have been worse."
Regarding the possibility of organizing, they argue: "what is one going to do, just pray to God that there are no more injustices," "politics is very dirty, I like honesty, and in politics, you cannot be honest." "That's right, getting into politics is bringing problems for free, what for?" "as a woman, what are you going to get into that?" "in those organizations, they put you in for politics, and I already told you I don't like it."
The arguments about the State and political organization among the non-compensated point about the expropriation: "If they had seen unity, there would have been more strength to claim," "Yes, there was a lack of unity, they divided into groups that never agreed," "...with the betrayal of our leaders, we all separated," "some were no longer interested in the land and wanted to accept what they were given," "my father did not want to sell at any price, he wanted the land, but some did want to sell, and there came the division," "but I tell you, if everyone had united and had set themselves not to receive the payment, they would have had to fix it for them."
Regarding the organization, they opine: "Look, more is achieved like this among everyone," "unity makes strength," "if one has the possibility to defend oneself or defend another from an injustice, one must do it," "we try right now, they are committing an injustice with us: but we have not achieved anything."
With these reflections from the chinampa farmers, we make a cut in the history of the chinampas of Iztapalapa, part of the history of Mexico City. However, for a history to exist, it is important that the memory, the memory of a common past, be alive. "Exercising urban memory is both a social and political act. Social, given its contents, the objects to which it applies; political, because it implies recognizing the aspirations and projects of a social group." (Aguilar, 1984).
The study of the chinampa farmers of Iztapalapa was carried out by performing the following activities:
A documentary analysis of the technology, origins, and development of chinampas.
Collecting oral histories and testimonies from former chinampa farmers.
Investigation of the representation of the land; networks of exchange and kinship, and the locus of control among chinampa farmers.
Elaboration of a video program: "Memory of the Chinampas" and a poster-brochure for dissemination.
Work on cultural identity among children of a primary school in the neighborhoods (drawings, interviews with grandparents, group discussions, wall newspapers).
Dissemination of the video with former chinampa farmers, the children of the primary school, and at UAM-Iztapalapa and Azcapotzalco.
A diagnosis of the Cerro de la Estrella and a project for historical-ecological and recreational rescue.
This study is a collective work carried out by inhabitants of the neighborhoods of Iztapalapa, together with teachers, students, and technical staff of UAM-Iztapalapa.
On behalf of the Social Psychology area, the research of the Chinampa Farmers of Iztapalapa during 1984 was carried out by: Trinidad Almaraz Ovando, Lourdes Castro Gómez, Bernardita González Zuloaga, Jorge Gutiérrez Sánchez, Imelda Hernández Lona, Rocío Olguín Varela, Magdalena Revah Lacouture, Anne Reid, Leticia Casanova Rodas, Janet de la Serna José, Martha López Huebe, and Jaime Medina Ramírez.
The responsibility for the writing of this work and its revision remains with Anne Reid and M. Angel Aguilar, respectively.