Mesta: Difference between revisions

{{aboutAbout|the medieval [[sheep]] herders' association in Castile}}

[[File:Principales vias pecuarias.png|thumb|200px|right|The principal drove roads of Spain.]]

The '''''Mesta''''' ({{Lang-Langx|es|Honrado Concejo de la Mesta|lit=Honorable Council of the ''Mesta''}}) was a powerful association protecting livestock owners and their animals in the [[Crown of Castile]] that was incorporated in the 13th century and was dissolved in 1836. Although best known for its organisation of the annual migration of [[Transhumance|transhumant]] sheep, particularly those of the [[merinoMerino]] breed, the flocks and herds of all species of livestock in Castile and their owners were under the oversight of the Mesta, including both the transhumant and the sedentary ones.<ref>Marín Barriguete (2015), p. 101</ref> The [[Transhumance|transhumant]] sheep were generally owned in [[Old Castile]] and [[León (historical region)|León]], where they had their summer pastures, and they migrated to and from winter pastures of [[Extremadura]] and [[Andalusia]] according to the season.

The royal protection for the Mesta's flocks and herds was signified by the term ''Cabaña Real'' ({{Lang-Langx|es|Cabaña Real de Ganados|lit= royal flock or herd of livestock}} that applied to these protected animals.<ref>De Asso y del Rio and Manuel y Rodriguez, pp. 88-90</ref> The [[kings of Castile]] conceded many other privileges to the ''Mesta''. The ''[[wikt:droveway|cañada]]s'' (traditional [[Right-of-way (transportation)|rights-of-way]] for sheep or sheep-walks) arewere legally protected in perpetuity from being built on, cultivated or blocked, and they still are protected public domain in our days.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Patrimonios Públicos: Vías Pecuarias |url=https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/politica-forestal/vias-pecuarias.html |access-date=2024-04-19 |website=Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica y el Reto Demográfico |language=es}}</ref> The most important ''cañadas'' were called {{Lang-Langx|es|cañadas reales|lit=royal ''cañadas''|label=none}}, because they were established by royal decrees.

The origin of the Mesta is related to the growth of transhumance after the Castilian conquest of the [[Taifa of Toledo]]. Three groups were granted royal charters including the rights to winter pasturage in the Tagus valley. The first were monasteries that owned summer pastures in the [[Sierra de Guadarrama]], followed by the [[ReligiousMilitary order (religious society)|religious military orders]]) which had acquired lands after the conquest of Toledo, in the area renamed [[New Castile (Spain)|New Castile]].<ref name="pastor 375-7"> Pastor de Togneri. pp. 375</ref> Later, the urban elites of Old Castile and León, who used urban grazing in the city's ''término'' ({{Lang-Langx|es|término| lit= rural area within a city's jurisdiction}}, including its pasturage on nearby sierras, were granted similar rights. None of these groups, nor the few lay members of the [[Spanish nobility|nobility]] that also received such grants, could base their wealth on crop-growing in the dry and underpopulated lands of New Castile, so relied on raising livestock.<ref>Pascua Echegaray pp.221-3</ref>

Initially, the Mesta included both large and small livestock owners and was controlled by them, however, from the time of [[Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor| Charles V]], the organisation ceased to be controlled exclusively by such owners, as royal officials, who were leading nobles and ecclesiastics and not necessarily stock-owners, were appointed to its governing body.<ref>Klein, p.49</ref> Although wool exports began in the 14th century, it was only when the export of high-quality [[merino wool]] was stimulated in the late 15th century by a sales tax exemption for Mesta members that this trade significantly enriched the members of the Mesta. These were increasingly members of the higher nobility, who owned flocks in excess of 20,000 merino sheep, and smaller owners ceased to be involved in transhumance.<ref>Klein, pp.59-60</ref> The most important wool markets were held in [[Burgos]], [[Medina del Campo]] and Segovia, but particularly Burgos.<ref>Klein, pp.42-4</ref>

Although the earliest surviving charter granting royal protection and grazing and other privileges to the Mesta was issued by [[Alfonso X of Castile]] in 1273, it claimed to replace four separate older documents, and it did not so much create the Mesta as assume its existence when granting it royal protection from the local taxes and restrictions it was encountering.<ref> Bishko (1963), p.61</ref><ref>Klein, pp. 176-7</ref> The charters and privileges of the Mesta resemble those of mediaeval merchant [[guild]], but it was actually a protective association, facilitating the business of the sheep and other livestock owners without engaging directly in their business. It did not own any sheep or pastures, buy and sell wool or control markets, and its close association with the Spanish government gave it a status and extensive presence unmatched by any guild.<ref>Klein, pp.354, 357</ref>

Sheep numbers in Castile and León had increased greatly in the 12th and early 13th centuries, outgrowing the available local grazing and encouraging transhumance to more distant pastures.<ref name="pastor 364"> Pastor de Togneri. p. 364</ref> This transhumance was a frequent cause of dispute between the shepherds and local inhabitants, and the Cortes of 1252 enacted laws regulating the number and amounts of tolls that could be levied upon the flocks moving through a district,. It also allowed them to use streams and customary sheepwalks (cañadas) and prevented the enclosure of previously open pasturage, foreshadowing the privileges granted to the Mesta.<ref name="ocallaghan 47"> O’Callaghan, p.47</ref> During the Cortes of Burgos in 1269, the king imposed the ''servicio de los ganados'', a tax on migratory flocks and herds, and the recognition of the Mesta in 1273 allowed Alfonso to derive a greater portion of the resources of the sheep-herding industry more efficiently.<ref>O’Callaghan, name="ocallaghan p.47" </ref>9

The north coast, northwest and, to a lesser extent, the southwest of Spain enjoy abundant rainfall, but the [[Meseta Central| central Meseta]] has low rainfall, and many areas could hardly support dry arable farming in mediaeval times. Dependence solely on cereal cultivation risked periodic starvation, and livestock rearing was important in the mediaeval agricultural economy of Spain's Christian kingdoms.<ref>Higgs, p.167</ref> [[Old Castile]] was the main cereal growing area, and it supplied its own grain needs in most years, but other parts of the [[Kingdom of Castile]] relied on Old Castile in years of shortage.<ref> Reitzer, p.213</ref> The archaeological record shows that keeping pigs, sheep and goats was widespread, but numbers were limited by the lack of food in the dry summers and cold winters, and cattle were only kept in better watered areas. Small flocks of sheep and goats could be moved to summer hill pastures near settlements, but large numbers of all animals were slaughtered in late autumn. There is no clear evidence for large scale sheep transhumance of sheep flocks before the late mediaeval period.<ref name="gt 181">Gilman and Thornes, p.181</ref>

In the early mediaeval period, as the Christian Kingdom of Castile and [[Kingdom of León| León]] expanded from their original northern territories, relatively well-watered and with good soils, to the interior plains of the Meseta Central, where scarce rainfall and poor soils made cereal agriculture difficult.<ref name="Bishko 1980, pp.496-7">Bishko (1980), pp.496-7</ref> In the Muslim-controlled areas, water management, irrigation, and the introduction of drought resistant and more productive crop varieties overcame the water shortages, but these techniques were not adopted in the Christian territories until they had conquered areas where they were used.<ref> Reilly, pp.62-3</ref>

It has been claimed that, during the medieval [[Reconquista| Reconquest]], the frontier lands between Christian and Muslim areas were sparsely populated, largely uncultivated and used mainly for animal grazing, and that the periodic movement of this frontier zone encouraged [[ transhumance]].<ref>Bishko (1963), p. 49</ref><ref> name="Bishko (1980), pp.496-7<"/ref> However, the Christian advance into the [[Douro| Duero]] valley was undertaken by peasant mixed-farmers, who densely settled it, combining cereal crops with small livestock holdings.<ref name="reilly 90-2"> Reilly, pp.90-2</ref> Only when the Reconquest progressed beyond Old Castile and entered areas of poor soils where it was difficult to grow cereals or to maintain high livestock densities did the poor quality of the land and availablethe limited availability of grazing favour sheep [[transhumance]] over sedentary mixed farming.<ref>Simpson, p.37</ref> Transhumance existed in other Mediterranean countries with climates and grazing that favoured transhumance which were similar to central Spain that favoured transhumance, but which were not unsettled as Spain was during the Reconquest.<ref>Klein, p.8</ref>

Sheep were relatively unimportant in the Islamic [[Caliphate of Córdoba]] and there is no known record of long-distance transhumance before its fall in the 1030s.<ref>Walker, p. 38</ref> The Marinids, a [[Zenata]] Berber group which held extensive sheep flocks in Morocco, intervened in Andalusia several times in the late 13th and early 14th centuries in support of the [[Emirate of Granada]],<ref> Reilly, pp. 162-3</ref> and they may have brought new breeds of sheep and the practice of long-distance transhumance, including the use of Berber and Arabic terms, into Spain.<ref>Butzer, pp. 39-40</ref> <ref>Klein, p. 5</ref> However, there is no definite evidence that the Marinids did bring their flocks to Spain and they arrived as a fighting force, conducting frequent raids against the Castilians, soand were hardly in a position to protect any flocks they might have brought.<ref>Lopez (1996), p.124</ref> It is more probable that Moroccan rams were imported, to [[crossbreed]] with the native stock.<ref>Braudel, p.94</ref><ref>Rahn Phillips and Philips, p.41</ref>

The captures by Castile of [[Toledo, Spain|Toledo]] in 1085 and of [[Zaragoza]] by the [[Kingdom of Aragon]] in 1118 greatly increased the sizes of these Christian kingdoms and, particularly for Aragon, their populations.<ref> Reilly, pp.99-100, 109-10</ref> However, the increase in Castile's population was not commensurate with its increased size. Much of the Muslim population of the southern territories, renamed [[New Castile (Spain)| New Castile]], left for North Africa or the [[Emirate of Granada]], and the increasing use of the heavy [[plough]] in the north of the kingdom raised cereal production and discouraged re-its population byfrom southward migration into areas less suitable for mixed farming.<ref> name="Reilly, pp.139-40">Reilly, pp.139-40</ref>

In the 12th and 13th centuries, many sheep-herders in Old Castile and León began transhumance to more distant pastures, within or without those provinces,<ref name="pastor 364" /> This was both of the ''normal'' variety, moving from the home farm to summer pastures within the same province, and an ''inverse'' movement to winter pastures further away.<ref> Braudel, p.85-6</ref> Two examples of normal transhumance are, first, when many Castilian cities and towns were granted royal charters in the 12th century, they gained control over large areas of upland pasturage and granted grazing rights to their citizens.<ref>Pascua Echegaray, pp.230-2</ref>.<ref> Diago Hernando, p.63</ref> and, second, after the Aragónese conquest of the Ebro valley in the first quarter of the 12th century, sheep wintering in the valley were granted rights by the king to summer pasture in the foothills of the [[Pyrenees]].<ref>Butzer, p.39</ref>

Until the 10th century, much of the land in Old Castile and León was in the collective ownership of peasants carrying on mixed subsistence farming including small-scale, local livestock activity.<ref name="echegaray 211">Pascua Echegaray, p.211</ref> However, by the 14th and 15th centuries, most of such communities had become dependent, first on monasteries, later on lay lords and finally on neighbouring cities and large towns whose councils were controlled by oligarchies. The early part of this process social and economic differentiation in the 11th to 13th centuries coincided with, and probably promoted, the rise of large-scale transhumance.<ref> Pascua Echegaray, pp. 227-9</ref> In the 10th and 11th centuries, several large Benedictine monasteries founded in the Duero valley began medium-range transhumance and gained royal privileges of pasturage on the slopes of the [[Sierra de Guadarrama]].<ref name="echegaray 211" />

The Castilian expansion of the 12th century was based substantially on the civic militias of Old Castile, but in the 13th century the forces of the military orders based in the south of New Castile were more important. The orders, particularly those of [[Order of Santiago| Santiago]] and [[Order of Calatrava| Calatrava]] were granted extensive rights to land in this territory.<ref>Bishko, (1963) pp.51-2</ref><ref>Pastor de Togneri, pp. 387-8</ref> The military orders settled few peasant cultivators in their lands, although peasants grew some grain was grown close to the towns, and many Muslim inhabitants left.<ref>Bishko, (1963) p. 54</ref><ref>Walker, (1963) p.39</ref>

At the start of the 12th century, the raising of livestock, preferably sheep, centred around pasture rights granted to clerics, initially those around the slopes of the Sierra de Guadarrama but later they began "inverse transhumance" to the pastures of the [[Sierra Morena]].<ref>Pascua Echegaray, p.212</ref> It was the flocks of the monasteries that first opened up the cañadas in New Castile, but these were soon followed by the military orders, and later by secular flocks, among the first being those from Burgos in the last decades of the 12th century.<ref name="pastor 378-9">Pastor de Togneri, pp.378-9</ref> By the late 12th century, the military Orders were regularly driving flocks of sheep from New Castile into the previously Muslim areas of La Mancha and western Murcia, and even into areas still under Muslim control before the [[Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa]].<ref>Butzer, pp. 38-9</ref><ref name="pastor 378-9" />

The kings of Castile from [[Alfonso VIII of Castile| Alfonso VIII]] to [[Ferdinand III of Castile| Ferdinand III]] protected the rights of the monasteries and military orders to move their sheep to graze in the south of their kingdom, but [[Alfonso X of Castile| Alfonso X]] realised that granting similar transhumant rights to the cities and towns of Old Castile and León would create a significant new source of income.<ref>Klein, p.239</ref><ref>Pastor de Togneri, pp. 389-90</ref> The conquest of the Guadalquivir valley in the 13th century permitted flocks from the Duero and Tagus basins to over-winter there, extending the length of transhumance journeys and the number of sheep that could be fed through the winter.<ref name="reilly 90-2" />

The Mesta’sMesta's original charter of 1273 was supplemented in 1276 and renewed in 1347 and 1371.<ref>Klein, pp. 184-5</ref> Its internal organisation was originally governed by regulations of 1379, which have been lost. However, ordinances of 1492, supplemented by a code of 1511, regulated its operations for most of its existence. It was organised into four geographical units ({{Lang-Langx|es|quadrillas |lit=groups or gangs}}) (''cuadrillas'' in modern Spanish) based around the principal pastoral cities of the northern meseta, [[Soria]], [[Segovia]], [[Cuenca, Spain| Cuenca]] and [[León, Spain| León]],, where most of the flocks of Merino flockssheep had their home pastures.<ref name="Butzer, p. 41">Butzer, p. 41</ref> Its governing council consisted a president who was, after 1500, always chosen from the members of the Royal Council, and the leaders of each of the four quadrillas.<ref>Butzer, p. 39</ref><ref>Klein, pp. 49-50</ref> The office of president was so powerful that, when the reformer [[Pedro Rodríguez, Count of Campomanes]] was appointed to this post in 1779 to eliminate the organisation's abuses, he went far towards dismantling the Mesta's organisation by promoting agriculture in the [[Sierra Morena]], one of its principal winter pasturelands, despite opposition from Mesta members.<ref name="Klein, pp.51-2">Klein, pp.51-2</ref>

The most important administrative officials of the Mesta were the ''alcaldes de quadrilla'' or(also called alcaldes de mesta, two elected by each quadrilla, who were entrusted with the general administration of the laws relating to its the members. There were also financial and legal officials who represented members in arranging leases and in disputes with third-parties. <ref> name="Klein, pp.51-2<"/ref>

The assemblies of the Mesta were open to anyone who paid its membership dues, which were based in the number of sheep each owned, and no minimum ownership was required. However, it was estimated that only around one-tenth of theits membership attended thethese assemblies. Although every member present had a single vote, nobles and substantial owners had the greatest influence and were often able to influencedirect proceedings.<ref>Klein, pp.49-50</ref> Initially, the Mesta held three assemblies a year, but from 1500 this was reduced to two, one in the southern pasturelands in January or February, and the other in one of the four northern quadrilla centres in September or October. These assemblies dealt with the organisation of the next transhumance and the election of Mesta officials, and proposals were first voted on by each quadrilla, then in a general assembly, where each quadrilla had a single vote. In the 18th century, meetings were often reduced to one a year, always held in Madrid.<ref>Klein, pp.50-1</ref>

Although great nobles and major monasteries are frequently recorded as Mesta member, these large owners were not typical of the industry. The limited available evidence from the 16th century suggests there were between 3,000 and 4,000 owners, that two-thirds of the sheep migrating annually were held in flocks of less than 100 sheep, and that very few flocks exceeded 1,000 sheep. Although by the 18th century, there were fewer small owners and several owners held flocks of more than 20,000 sheep, the Mesta wasremained largely an organisation of owners of small to moderately-sized flocks, and never simply a combination of large owners.<ref>Klein, pp.59-62</ref> However, it is also clear that, in the Mesta's final century of existence, many of the owners of small flocks had to abandon the annual migration, unless thethey were employed by large owners as shepherds, because their small flocks were no longer allowed to be grouped into larger units, as had been the case in earlier centuries.<ref>Marín Barriguete(2015), pp.218-9</ref>

There is nolittle information on howthe annual migrations in the migrationfirst century of the Mesta's charter, although as northern flocks were supplying the meat markets of Toledo then, this suggests that producing wool was not yet their predominant purpose.<ref>Butzer, p.38</ref> There is also nothing about how the migrations were carried out in practice in the Mesta ordinances of 1492 or its code of 1511, and there is only occasional documentary evidence about this from legal proceedings dating from the 16th to 18th centuries, which discuss the customary practices governing this migration.<ref>Klein, p. 21</ref> The most complete account of its organisationHowever, givenfrom bythe a16th shepherdcentury, wasif recordednot in 1828earlier, in the organisation’spastoral lasttranshumant decade.<ref>Kleincycle, p.24</ref>involving Mostthe dates of the Merinotwo flocks frommigrations, the latelength 15thof centurydaily onmarches hadand theirfrequency homeof pastures in Leónrests, Oldand Castilethe andtimes north-easternfor Lalambing and Manchashearing, anwas areadesigned dividedto betweenensure the fourbest quadrillasconditions offor León,the Segoviafeeding, Soriagrowth and Cuenca, eachreproduction of whichMerino dealtsheep. withThe a sectionavailability of thefresh annualgrass transhumance.<ref>Butzer,throughout p.the 41</ref>year Flocksresulted fromin Leónthe andincreased Oldfineness Castile travelled between 550 and 750 kilometres toof their winter pasturesfleeces, while those from New Castile and La Manchait rarelywas travelledrealised morethat thantranshumance 250was kilometres.essential Allto thesecreate usuallywool completed their migration south inof a monthquality orthat less,sedentary reachingsheep theirflocks wintercould pasturesnot inmatch. October,This andcircumstance theywas usuallyused beganto theirjustify returnedthe north in April andMesta's Mayprivileges.<ref>KleinMarín Barriguete(2015), pp.28201-92</ref>

The annual migration was made possible by using ''cañadas'' a system of long-distance pathways used by migrating flocks which occur in those Mediterranean countries that practice transhumance. In Spain and, some of thosethe paths that run north-southnorth–south are known to have existed from the early Middle Ages, although claims of Roman or pre-Roman origin are doubtful,<ref>Klein, pp. 28-9</ref> as the ancient sheepwalks that have been described from Spain are generally relatively short and frequently run from uplands east to the Mediterranean coast, rather than from north to south.<ref>Walker, pp. 41-2</ref> Sheep were generally only part of the mixed farming of cereals and livestock in León and Old Castile before the 12th century, less important than pigs and rarely moved outside thetheir local area.<ref>Pastor de Togneri p.365</ref> The cañadas in León and Old Castile may have developed from an increased range of transhumance that first occurred within those provinces, and which waswere extended south as the northern boundaries of Muslim states retreated.<ref name="Walker, p.38">Walker, p.38</ref>

The expansion of the cañadas southward has been related to three causes, which may have all played their part, but here is no evidence of large scale transhumance in Extremadura, Andalucía and La Mancha when they were under Muslim rule, so the impetus must have come from the Christian north.<ref> Pastor de Togneri p. 366</ref> From the reconquest of Toledo in 1085 to that of Andalucía, stock raising, particularly of sheep, was developed New Castile, at first by over thirty northern monasteries, bishoprics and churches, many with their summer pastures in the Sierra de Guadarrama, and secondly by the military orders, which received royal grants of pasturelands in the Tagus valley.<ref>Pastor de Togneri pp. 367-9</ref> Documents dated from the late 12th century show that the military Orders were regularly driving their sheep from New Castile into the previously Muslim areas of La Mancha, western Murcia and into the Guadalquivir valley, and it is possible that this transhumance had crossed political boundaries between Christian and Muslim states the before local Christian reconquest.<ref>Butzer, pp.38-9</ref>

The third possible cause relates to transhumance organised by the towns of Castile and León. Southern towns, such as Toledo after its 1085 reconquest, sent their flocks to over-winter in the Guadalquivir valley, accompanied by an armed guard.<ref>Bishko, (1963) p.57.</ref> In addition, there was an expansion of transhumant travel south from Segovia and Burgos at the end of the 12th century and the start of the 13th century using cañadas opened by the monasteries, possibly into what was still Muslim territory .<ref>Pastor de Togneri p. 378-6</ref> However, the victory of Los Navas de Tolosa in 1212 opened the pastures of the Guadiana to all Castilian flocks, not just those of the monasteries and military orders,. asAs the influence of the Castilian urban stockholders increased from the last decades of the 12th Centurycentury, whichthey increased the numbers of theirthe sheep they were able to support by exploiting thethese new pastures.<ref> Pastor de Togneri pp.372-4</ref>

The main north-southnorth–south cañadas, or ''Cañadas Reales'', were those designated by royal charter, although their precise routes may have changed over time, as they were only marked and given a defined width when crossing cultivated land, not when crossing open or untilled land. Both near their north and south termini, numerous minor local cañadas joined into or branched off from the Cañadas Reales.<ref>Klein, pp.18-19</ref> Klein describes three principal groups of cañadas reales wholly within the kingdom of Castile-LeonLeón, namely the western, or ''Leonesa'', the central, or ''Segoviana'', and the eastern, or ''Manchega'' groups, running through the cities of León, Segovia and Cuenca respectively.<ref>Klein, p.19</ref>, and Walker splits the Segovian group, adding a fourth group passing through Soria.<ref> name="Walker, p.38<"/ref> The Leonese cañadas terminated in [[Extremadura]] and in the banks of the Tagus and Guadiana rivers, those of Segovia and Soria, which were the major routes, ended in Andalucía and the Manchegan ones in [[La Mancha]] and eastern [[Murcia]]. Some authors divide these groups into nine or ten quite separate routes, but Klein noted the possibility of sheep moving between different branches of the western and central groups.<ref>Cahn, pp.2-3</ref><ref>Klein, p.xviii</ref>

There are very few records of numbers of sheep migrating annually before the early 16th century. In the 16th century, the numbers of migrating sheep recorded annually ranged from 1.7 to 3.5 million, averaging around 2.5 million Merino sheep, but the numbers began to decline in the late 16th and particularly in the early 17th century, a time of warfare in the Low Countries.<ref>García Sanz (1978), pp.292-4</ref> Klein places the start of the Mesta’sMesta's decadence in the third quarter of the 16th century.<ref>Klein pp. 26-8</ref> During that period, only Merino sheep migrated, but the proportion of Merinos driven south in any year depended on the spring rainfall in the northern pastures and the fluctuating price of pasture in the south. After the [[Eighty Years’Years' War]], transhumant numbers rose again, but to a lower level than in the 16th century. This was not because of a decline in overall numbers of Merino numberssheep, but a reduction in long-range transhumance and a parallel increase in flocks pastured in their home areas. Non- migratory Merino flocks of southern cities such as Córdoba also expanded and competed with transhumant flocks.<ref>Butzer, pp. 41-2</ref>

Perhaps the most controversial of the Mesta's privileges was the right of ''posesión'', which established the Mesta's perpetual title to tenancy for all pasturess leased by its members.<ref>Klein, p.92</ref> Its origin lay in the Mesta’sMesta's code for its own internal administration, dated 1492. One clause attempted to prevent competition among the sheep owners for winter pasturage through an arrangement for the joint bargaining for pasture leases by lessees acting for the Mesta. Each of the four quadrillas selected a representative annually, to proceed to Extremadura and Andalucía before the annual migration and arrange the terms of grazing leases for the coming winter season. Each member was only assigned sufficient land for his flocks, and each landowner was to be treated equally. The aim was to prevent competition between Mesta members or joint action by the landowning lessors to raise rents.<ref>Klein, p.322</ref>

The 1492 ordinance was an internal Mesta measure inlyonly, but a significant action taken by Ferdinand and Isabella in January 1501 in support of the Mesta was to create a law of posesión, which granted Mesta members the permanent tenancy of a stated pasture field, either at the rental paid under their earliest lease, or if a flocks occupied such fields for a season unchallenged or undiscovered by the landowner, for no payment. The probable intention was to prevent competition for grazing among Mesta members, by guaranteeing the earliest flocks to arrive were given priority for leases. However, the Mesta was able to have aan interpretation of the rule of posesión accepted by the courts that was more favourable to its interests, arguing that, as its charter allowed it to represent all sheep owners, it had the right negotiate and allocate all pasturage leases in Castile to prevent disputes or competition between its members.<ref>Klein, pp.323-4</ref>

Although this interpretation was disputed by the landowners of southern Castile, including towns, ecclesiastics, military orders and private individuals, it was upheld by the courts and confirmed in a series of laws ofpassed in 1505. One interpretation, based on the assumption that the privilege of posesión operated strictly in accordance with these laws and could be enforced, was that it retarded the growth of agriculture and had a negative effect on Spain’sSpain's political development for centuries,<ref>Klein pp.325-6</ref> a view that ignores the active and passive resistance to this legislation.<ref> Marín Barriguete (2015), pp.100-1</ref> An alternative view is that the right of posesión was a form of rent control that guaranteed shepherd access to the pastures at stable prices.<ref>García Sanz, (1998), p.82-4</ref>

The Habsburg monarchs were inconsistent in granting exemptions from the Mesta’sMesta's privileges, including posesión, in return for payment. However, in 1633, after a sharp downturn in wool sales and the related tax revenue, the rules of posesión were renewed, and pastures converted to arable were ordered to be restored to pasturage. It has been suggested that a weak monarchy and strong local resistance reduced the effect of this measure,<ref> Klein p.339</ref> but a survey of sheep owners in the [[province of Soria]] indicates that far more of them included rights of posesión in their wills andin regardedthe them17th century, regarding these rights as part of their [[patrimony]], inthan thedid 17th century thanso in the 16th century, and that such rights were exchanged between such owners. Although posesión gave rise to frequent legal disputes, these demonstrate an increase in the practice as much as opposition to it.<ref>Diago Hernando, p.70</ref>

The first two Spanish Bourbon kings, under the influence of the doctrines of [[mercantilism]] current in France, renewed Mesta privileges in 1726 and extended the law of posesión to Aragon.<ref>Marín Barriguete (2015), p. 384</ref> Their action was more successful than the 1633 renewal, as appeals in pasture disputes were moved to a court more favourable to the Mesta.<ref>Klein p.343</ref> In contrast to his predecessors, Charles III and his reforming ministers regarded posesión as a mediaeval survival that had outlived its usefulness and considered that its continuation inhibited a necessary growth in cereal cultivation.<ref>Marín Barriguete, (2015), pp. 389-91</ref> This led, firstly to a restriction of the right of posesión in 1761, and then its complete abolition in 1786. <ref>Klein pp.345</ref>

Cereal growing inevitably competed with sheep rearing, and the movement of flocks from the Old Castile to Andalucía created conflict between shepherds and the farmers cultivating crops along migration routes, as well as those local owners of sheep in areaareas sofof winter pasture.<ref>Braudel, p. 92</ref> During the 13th and 14th centuries, the widespread introduction of the [[carruca| heavy plough]] in Old Castile led to increased cereal production and led to the abandonment of marginal cultivation, creating more pasture. The emigration of much of the Muslim population from New Castile to Granada and North Africa also led to the abandonment of areas of dry farming there. These changes favoured stock-raising, and there was probably enough land for both pasture and arable farming at first.<ref> name="Reilly, pp.139-40<"/ref>

Laws confirming the Mesta's rights and tax privileges were issued seven times in the 14th century. However the frequency with which legislation was restated under relatively strong monarchs, and the absence of confirmatory legislation under weak ones, particularly for much of the 15th century, showed how extensive was resistance to the Mesta’sMesta's privileges, as it required the Crown’sCrown's support to enforce obedience to the laws protecting its members.<ref>Klein, pp. 190-1</ref> There is ample evidence from this period of disputes over unauthorised tolls and encroachment on the cañadas, and ploughing of pastures which might only be used for a few months a year.<ref>Klein, pp. 12, 20-1</ref> In theory, the Mesta had the right of pasturage and transit over all land except that in use for growing cereals, vineyards, orchards, hay meadows producing winter feed for cattle and land reserved for deer, but these mediaeval privileges had ceased to exist in reality by the end of the 15th Centurycentury, largely because the frequency of encroachments on pasturelands and the numbers of unjustified tolls swamped the courts with far more cases than they could deal with adequately.<ref>Marín Barriguete (1992), pp.132-4</ref>

Itinerant judicial officials, each termed an ''Entregador'', were tasked with keeping open the cañadas and their watering and resting stations, resisting encroachments on public pastures and protecting the shepherds. Initially one such official patrolled each of the four main cañada systems, but their numbers were increased to six in the late 15th century, then later reduced to only three in 1650. They were initially appointed by the Crown to protect the interests of the Mesta and adjudicate in disputes it had with towns and the landowners along the transhumant routes. In 1568, the Entregadors became officers of the Mesta, and lost the prestige of being royal officials.<ref>Klein, pp.86-8</ref>

Flocks migrating south required stops for rest, feeding and watering om route and were vulnerable to excessive charges there, and to excessive rents charged at their destinations by owners of winter pastures. The shepherds had little alternative to paying or risking heavy livestock losses. The military orders also opposed the attempts of northern pastoralists to use winter grazing in their territories.<ref> Bishko (1963), pp. 62-3</ref> The strong monarchy of the late 15th and 16th Centuriescenturies, which supported the export of merino wool, was better able to protect the members of the Mesta and the emergence of the right of ''posesión'' in the 16th century, controlledattempted to control these charges and rents and guaranteedguarantee shepherds access to the pastures at fixed prices, although there was increasing pressure for new arable farmland to be brought into use in the 18th century.<ref>García Sanz (1998), pp.82-4</ref>

Under the later Habsburg monarchs, there was increasing resistance to the passage of transhumant flocks. This led to the decline in smaller owners being involved in transhumance and the dominance of the Mesta by those with very large flocks, who had the money to pay for grazing along migration routes and the political influence to enforce their rights. The towns onen route either tried to dissuade or divert transhumant flocks from their territory, or to extract as much as they could by leasing their pastures for flocks on their way to and from the south.<ref>Marín Barriguete (1992), pp 134-5</ref> Although, in theory, the Mesta’sMesta's legal rights were clear and the association had an impressive apparatus to enforce them, these rights were breached when routes of the cañadas were moved away to fertile pastures or restricted to below their legal width, and illegal dues were imposed. Even where the Mesta’sMesta's right were restored after lengthy court proceedings, those that had infringed them usually received no financial or other penalty.<ref>Marín Barriguete (1992), pp 137-8</ref> Both summer and winter pastures used by transhumant sheep were supposed to remain unploughed and unsown, as was reconfirmed by a royal decree of 1748. In the 18th century, this uncultivated land came under great pressure as the numbers of transhumant sheep doubled, but rents for pasture were fixed and the land could not be used for crops.<ref>Simpson, pp. 63-57</ref>

Klein regarded the reign of Ferdinand and Isabela as theythe golden age of the Mesta, as their aggressive promotion of wool exports,<ref>Klein, pp.37-8</ref> reform of local taxes and dues,<ref>Klein, pp.209-10-8</ref> ensuring that the collection of what should have been royal taxes on sheep were collected only by royal agents, efficiently and at much lower rates than under the Hapsburg kings,<ref>Klein, pp.271-2, 278-9</ref>, and extending and enforcing pasture privileges for transhumant flocks and enforcing these<ref>Klein, p.317, 105</ref> put the members of the Mesta in a more favourable position than they had under later monarchs. The [[Emperor Charles V]] greatly increased taxes on wool production and impose forced loans in the Mesta to fund his ambitions outside Spain,<ref>Klein, pp.279-80</ref> and Klein argued that the wool trade started to decline from the 1560s, when [[PhillipPhilip II of Spain| PhillipPhilip II]] further increased export taxes on it, and that the Mesta never fully revived.<ref>Klein, pp.46-8, 356</ref>

The Mesta originated, firstly, because the dry climate of the central Meseta and the sparse population of areas reconqueredconquered from the Muslims between the 11th and 13th centuries made the transhumant raising of sheep the most efficient use of its land. The continuation of its activities in the 15th and 16th centuries depended on the introduction of the Merino breed, whose fine wool supported the growth of the Italian wool textile industry and allowed that of the Low Counties to overcome the decline in English wool exports. Even though the Andalusian plains that could have supported intensive wheat cultivation, the need for winter pastures and their relatively low population before the 18th century prevented this development.<ref>Braudel pp. 93-4</ref>

Secondly, the Mesta was an important source of royal income from the 13th century. Alfonso X wished to tax the transhumant flocks and their wool, and his charter of 1273 reserved certain taxes for the Crown and limited the levies that others could charge.<ref>Hough and Grier, p 95</ref> Although Castile had an impressive and all-encompassing tax system in theory, in practice the Crown was largely dependent on a sales, tax, and much of what the Crown actually received in the 16th and 17th centuries was collected by the Mesta on wool exports. The king received little of whatever other tax revenues were collected, as these were retained by the cities or nobles.<ref>Simpson pp. 63-5</ref> The royal sheep taxes became a critical source of income under the Habsburgs and early Bourbons, and these taxes and forced loans imposed on the Mesta made its continuation essential to the Spanish exchequer.<ref>Klein pp. 277-9, 284-5</ref>

As long as transhumant sheep continued to produce merino wool and the tax on wool exports continued to be a major source of royal income, the Mesta could continue. Warfare within Spain during the [[War of the Spanish Succession]] and the [[Peninsular War]] disrupted the annual migrations and, the latter particularly, devastated many flocks. External European conflicts such as the Eighty Years’Years' War could also hinder exports of wool. Although the numbers of sheep controlled by the Mesta recovered after each conflict, the recovery after the Peninsular War was only partial.<ref>García Sanz, (1978), pp.292-4</ref>

After a period of virtual bankruptcy in the late 17th century, when the weak government of [[Charles II of Spain| Charles II]] failedwas todetrimental supportto the Mesta, a recovery under the first two Bourbon monarchs reversed this trend, particularly after the [[War of the Spanish Succession]] ended, largely because the government enforced the Mesta’sMesta's privileges with greater rigour.<ref>Klein pp.342-3</ref> The numbers of transhumant sheep doubled between 1708 and 1780 to reach an historical peak around 1780, assisted by the royal decree of 1748, which confirmed that both summer and winter pastures must remain unploughed and unsown, unless royal permission for ploughing was granted.<ref>García Sanz, (1978), p.293</ref><ref>Simpson p.63-5</ref>

In the 18th century, as legislation controlling the price of pastures became more effectively enforced, the volume of wool exports increased. This was assisted by a decline in the Spanish population in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, which reduced the cultivation of grain. Increased prices for wool exports and the prohibition on returning pastures to arable prevented a growth in cultivation until pressure from reformers after the accession of [[Charles III of Spain| Charles III]] forced through agrarian reforms.<ref> Bilbao and de Pinedo, pp. 109-11</ref><ref>Klein p. 293</ref> However, there is no evidence of the failure of the Mesta’sMesta's institutions before the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century.<ref>Marín Barriguete (2015), pp. 102-3</ref>

==Decline of the Mesta==

Although Merino sheep had been exported from Spain in the 18th century, the greatest effect of the loss of Spain’sSpain's virtual monopoly of producing the finest quality wools was felt in the early 19th century, when the disruption caused by the Peninsular War, which persisted for several years after the war ended, led to a decline in quantity and quality of Spanish wool produced, and allowed foreign producers of merino wool to prosper.<ref>García Martín, pp.104-6</ref>

In the aftermath of the Peninsular War, [[Ferdinand VII of Spain| Ferdinand VII]] again ratified the Mesta’sMesta's privileges in 1816 and 1827, reversing the reforms of Charles III.<ref>Klein pp.346-7</ref> This was similar to the support that [[Philip IV of Spain| Philip IV]] gavehad given during the early-17th century crisis, suggesting that royal support was more secure in times of crisis for the Mesta than when its 18th century expansion made it a target for Charles III’sIII's reforms.<ref>Marín Barriguete (2015), p.102</ref> However, the legal situation in the early 19th century did not reflect the actual weakness of the Mesta or the strength of the opposition to it of agriculturalists and the towns.<ref>Klein pp.347-8</ref> Neither could Royal support counter the growth of merino wool production in South America, Australia and South Africa, nor the competition from the wool of other breeds that approached it for fineness. After 1808, almost all the limited quantity of Spanish wool exports were of reduced quality and sold to Britain, and the numbers of transhumant sheep fell from 2.75 million in 1818 to 1.11 million in 1832.<ref>García Martín, pp.108-9, 117</ref>

During the latter stages of the Peninsular War, the [[Cortes of Cadiz]], inspired by the doctrines of [[liberalism]], attacked the privileges of the Mesta.<ref>García Martín, pp.113, 116</ref><ref>Klein p.348</ref> These were attacked again by the liberal government of the [[Trienio Liberal]], which replaced the Mesta with a short-lived state body. Although the Mesta was reinstated in the absolutist restoration of 1823, it was weakened and tainted by its association with [[Absolute monarchy| absolutism]].<ref>García Martín, pp.120-1</ref>

The Mesta had no place in the new social and political order introduced by the liberal government that [[Maria Christina of the Two Sicilies| the Regent Maria Christina]] had appointed in 1833. In 1835 and 1836, the Mesta lost all its private judicial powers, which were transferred to a new ''Associación General de Ganaderos'' (General Association of Herdsmen), and also its tax privileges and, on 5 November 1836, its dissolution was completed and the Mesta itself was dissolved.<ref>García Martín, pp.123-4</ref>.<ref>Klein pp.348, 356</ref>

* L. M. Bilbao and E. F. de Pinedo, (1994). ''Wool Exports Transhumance and Land Use in Castile in the 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries'', in A. A. Thompson, B. Yun Casalilla and B. Yun (editors), ''The Castilian Crisis of the Seventeenth Century,'', Cambridge University Press. {{ISBN|978-0-52141-624-5}}.

* C. J. Bishko, (1978). ''The Andalusian Municipal Mestas in the 14th-16th Centuries: Administrative and Social Aspects.'' CordobaCórdoba, Actas del I Congreso de Historia de Andalucía, Vol. 1, pp 347-374347–374. {{ISBN|84-500-2609-1}}.

* K. W. Butzer, (1988) ''Cattle and Sheep from Old to New Spain: Historical Antecedents.'' Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 78, No. 1, pp. 29-56&nbsp;29–56.

* A. L. Cahn, (2008). ''El espíritu del lugar en las Cañadas Reales de la Corona de Castilla''. Revista de Urbanismo, Vol. 19, pp. 1-19&nbsp;1–19.

* M. Diago Hernando, (2002). ''La aplicación en la Sierra Soriano del Derecho de Posesión Mesteño a los Agostaderos durante el Siglo XVII''. Estudios Agrosociales y Pesqueros, No. 195, pp. 61-79&nbsp;61–79.

* P. García Martín, (1992). ''La Ganderia Mesteña en la España Borbonica, (1700-18361700–1836), 2nd edition.'' Madrid, Ministerio de Agricultura. {{ISBN|84-7479-939-2}}.

* A. García Sanz, (1998). ''Los Privilegios Mesteños en el Tiempo, 1273-18361273–1836: Una Revisión de la Obra de Julius Klein.'' in F. Ruíz Martín and A. García Sanz (eds.), ''Mesta, Trashumancia y Lana en la España Moderna''. Barcelona, Crítica. {{ISBN| 84-7423-847-1}}.

* E. S. Higgs, (1976). ''The History of European agriculture — the Upland.'' Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Land. B. Vol. 275, pp. 159-173&nbsp;159–173.

*{{Cite book|last=McAlister|first=Lyle N.|title=Spain & Portugal in the New World: 1492–1700|publisher=University of Minnesota Press|year=1984|isbn=|location=Minneapolis|pages=19-2119–21}}.

* F. Marín Barriguete, (1992). ''Mesta y Vida Pastoril''. Revista de Historia Moderna. Vol. 11, pp.&nbsp;127–142.
* F. Marín Barriguete, (2015). ''La Legislación de la Trashumancia en Castilla (Siglo XVIII)''. Facultad de Derecho Universidad Complutense de Madrid. {{ISBN| 978-8 46084-778-6}}.

* ML. J. WalkerReitzer, (19831960), ''LayingSome aObservations Mega-Myth:on DolmensCastilian Commerce and DroversFinance in Prehistoricthe SpainSixteenth Century.'' WorldThe ArchaeologyJournal of Modern History, Vol. 1532, No. 13, pp. 37-50&nbsp;213–223.

[[Category:Sheep farming]]

[[Category:SpanishWool languagetrade]]

[[Category:MeatSpanish industrywords organizationsand phrases]]