European imperialism, war, strategic commodities and ecological limits: the diffusion of Hemp in Spanish South America and its ghost fibers

American Globalization, 1492–1850 Trans-Cultural Consumption in Spanish Latin America Edited by Bartolomé Yun-Casalilla, Ilaria Berti, and Omar Svriz-Wucherer First published 2022 ISBN: 978-0-367-76676-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-02443-1 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-16805-8 (ebk) Chapter 3 European Imperialism, War, Strategic Commodities and Ecological Limits: The Diff usion of Hemp in Spanish South America and Its Ghost Fibers (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) DOI: 10.4324/9781003168058-4 DOI: 10.4324/9781003168058-4 3 European Imperialism, War, Strategic Commodities and Ecological Limits The Diffusion of Hemp in Spanish South America and Its Ghost Fibers1 Manuel Díaz-Ordóñez Early globalization owes its existence to sailing ships propelled with thousands of tons of European hemp transformed into cordage and sails. The new American territories could have served to increment its cultivation, increasing what Pomeranz defines as ghost acreage, to supply the huge demand for hemp to rig the European fleets. In fact, Spanish-American sources make specific reference to a determined effort to increase its cultivation for use in naval vessels. On examination, however, we find that the results of measures to encourage the sector fell far short of expectations. Moreover, the numerous historical records of failures and frustrations seem incompatible with the classical explanation of European mercantilist resistance to transfer this agro-industrial activity to the American colonies. Therefore, it seems reasonable to broaden the focus of our investigation to include other scientific disciplines, such as botany and agronomy, in order to present a revised view of the limited introduction of hemp cultivation in Spanish South America. Hemp: AStrategic Input in the Global History of Consumption Hemp was a very important commodity for European national economies, given its use in such a wide range of productive sectors, including agriculture, beginning with the cultivation of the hemp plant, but also in livestock, construction, transport, textile manufacturing and, most importantly, as the predominant material in the sails and rigging of the European ships of the day. It was the widespread use of hemp as the main article of naval rigging that was the determining factor in the production of this plant, and its processing industries became a strategic axis of imperial economic policy in the modern era. Its characterization as the predominant fiber in the manufacture of naval rigging European Imperialism and Ecological Limits 57 (Díaz-Ordóñez 2006a, 2009), meant that hemp became a fundamental imperial strategic commodity from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century. Its study also provides us with a timely opportunity to analyze the paths through which hemp migrated across the lands of Asia and Europe, its subsequent passage to the American colonies and later to Oceania. This approach should provide us with a more global understanding of complex processes by observing them as commodity chains, which, in the words of Terence Hopkins and Immanuel Wallerstein, would gather together interorganizational networks clustered around hemp (Hopkins and Wallerstein 1986, 159). In this sense, a greater understanding of the peculiarities of the cultivation of this raw material is required, including the edaphological, climatic and environmental constraints characteristic of its agricultural production, in order to quantify the labor force required for its harvest and its subsequent connection to the commercial networks involved in its distribution to manufacturing centers and its transit onwards as an industrial item to its distribution and consumer markets. Acritical issue is the fact that these networks of the distribution of hemp and its manufactured articles would become global, because the ships whose rigging and sails were made with it were also entrusted with transporting it to America, when the Europeans discovered that it did not exist in the native biota of America or Oceania (Díaz-Ordóñez 2005). The production of hemp involves a complex agro-industrial system in which very diverse and distinctive operations are combined, including picking, harvesting, preparation and industrial transformation. For this reason, it seems appropriate that we should give an account of its global expansion on the basis of its strategic nature and its entangled history. In doing so we observe how the conditioning factors underlying the existence of the new territories under European imperial dominion underwent processes of economic transformation, which at the same time influenced the political and economic measures adopted by their respective homelands. Our argument focuses on analyzing the extent of Spanish resistance to moving the hemp agro-industry (cultivation and manufacture) to Spanish South America. If such resistance existed, this would back the argument in favor of the economic policy of mercantilism of the time, which defended restricting and even prohibiting American manufacturing, while the new territories were to be employed solely for the purpose of obtaining raw materials. Conversely, if these reservations in relation to the development and production of hemp in America did not exist, we could say that as a commercial activity with the production of rigging, sail and wick, it received differential treatment in comparison with other European manufacturing sectors (such as textiles, footwear, books, iron and steel, etc.) that were controlled by governments to defend their metropoles’ domestic industrial sectors. 58 Manuel Díaz-Ordóñez A second question, linked to the first, leads us to ask if the Spanish could take advantage of the new American territories to increase the area of cultivable land in the peninsula itself for the agricultural production of a strategic product such as hemp. This was a concept defined by Kenneth Pomeranz for which he coined the term ghost acreage, to explain how Europeans of the modern era disposed of additional arable land in the colonies and increased their capacity for economic growth (Pomeranz 2000). Continuing with this line of argument, while ghost acres allowed the Spanish colonizers access to more soil for cultivation– in this case of hemp– the new American biota also permitted them to become acquainted with, experiment and consume new raw materials (Pomeranz 2000, 275; De Vries 2001, 431–33). And so the question arises: were the Spanish able to profit from plants and vegetables from that new ecological reserve in order to replace European hemp? America: Ghost Acreage to Replace the Cultivation of European Hemp? Chronological evidence of hemp, and specifically the species Cannabis sativa L., dates far back in the environmental history of our planet (Edwards and Whittington 1992, 85). Scientific studies place its biological origin in Central Asia (Faeti, Mandolino, and Ranalli 1966, 367), in an area close to the Turpan Depression (Mukherjee etal. 2008, 483), from which it would have spread towards eastern Europe (Riera, LópezSáez, and Julià 2006, 127) during the first millennium before the Christian era and continued its expansion through southern Europe during the first centuries CE.2 Since the Middle Ages, hemp has been used in different human activities and industries, transformed and manufactured as ropes, sacks, fabrics, livestock feed in its seed form, and in oils for manufacturing, medicinal derivatives and so on. Our understanding of hemp as a global product entails a number of issues that we deem essential to the research at hand. In the first instance, hemp became a strategic commodity during the early Modern Age, because it was the essential product in the manufacture of maritime rigging for the military and merchant fleets that began connecting the world from 1500 onwards and whose numbers increased spectacularly.3 This increase in total displaced tonnage also prompted the proportionally astronomic growth in European hemp used in the manufacture of sails and rigging (Díaz-Ordóñez 2009, 601–6). Secondly, until the midnineteenth century, the Russian Empire was the predominant European hemp producer (Díaz-Ordóñez 2016, 96–99), with vast crops in present-day Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic Republics and part of Poland. This Russian preponderance is mainly explained by the climatic and soil conditions of some of the regions dominated by the Tsar. The production of industrial hemp requires land, preferably in temperate and cold European Imperialism and Ecological Limits 59 climates, which benefits from average annual rainfall of around 635 to 760 millimetres, and where the seeds are sown at dawn in temperatures of 6–8 °C. Such conditions can be easily met in the great plains of Belarus and Ukraine, with a humid continental climate (Dfb in the Koppen-Geiger classification), in which those ideal sowing temperatures are reached by the second half of March, which allowed farmers to plant the land very early and allowed the vegetative growth of hemp to last for more than a hundred days before the summer harvest. This fact also allowed Belarusian or Ukrainian crops to present a high percentage of fiber. The outcome was a significant increase in yield per surface unit, but also a better-quality final product. This great production of fiber was transported along the Russian river basins to the Baltic ports, such as Narva, Riga, Kaliningrad or St. Petersburg, from where it was distributed across western Europe, with the help of English and Dutch merchants (see Map3.1). Thirdly, in relation to the latter, the European wars of early modern times altered commercial circuits, thus activating waves of hemp promotion policies in the Western powers and their overseas territories (Díaz-Ordóñez 2017, 72–75). This complicated scenario, which combined the strategic necessity of the overseas empires to stock up on essential materials to maintain connections with the new territories dominated since the fifteenth century, and the overbearing role of the Russian empire as a supplier, drove the European powers to explore new agro-industrial possibilities in their new peripheries. The solution would have been obvious if the Europeans had found hemp either cultivated or in its wild form in the new American territories or, failing that, had encountered alternative fibers to European hemp for the manufacture of rigging and sails. The second possibility, having established the biological absence of hemp in these parts, would be for the empires to establish hemp agricultural development policies in the new territories, as they became successively incorporated into their domains. Both possibilities link back to the concept of Pomeranz’s ghost acreage (Pomeranz 2000, 275). However, although historiography has discussed alternative ghost acreages and their impact on economic growth (Vries 2001, 434–36), either in the form of an increase in arable land or, alternatively, the possibility of resorting to new and alternative supplies and products that could be consumed in England, in particular, or in Europe, in general, it seems reasonable to assume that, in any case, the empires exploited the possibilities offered by the new peripheries. But in the case of hemp, and any prospective substitute raw materials, there is no clear indication of the American territories offering any such resource. First, the Spanish colonizers, and later the English, explored the possibilities offered by the American biotas, but without reaching any decision on new fibers to incorporate into the catalog of commodities that could be transformed into rigging and sails. In initial contacts between Old and New World, the writings of the Spanish explorers mention 60 Manuel Díaz-Ordóñez Map 3.1 Russian Hemp Routes and Manufactured Distribution in the Early Modern Age in Europe. Source: prepared by the author from sources and bibliography. Software GIS QSIG 2.18.4. European Imperialism and Ecological Limits 61 the plant species used by the Indians of the Caribbean islands (Cuba, San Juan de Puerto Rico and Jamaica). Among these, they highlighted the use of certain species of vines and lianas (climbers) called magueys and damahaguas (also known as majagua), a Malvacea of the hibiscus genus.4 For its part, the maguey (known as pita, cabuya, fique, mezcal, etc.) was the plant most used in various pre-Columbian human activities and manoeuvres. Some chroniclers speak of its extended use among the settlers of central Mexico (Agave americana)5 and the henequen (Agave fourcroydes) on the Yucatecan coast, in Costa Rica (Fernández 1889, 17) and in Ecuador (Velasco 1833, 1:41–42). Finally, in Paraguay, the use of chaguar or caraguatá (Bromelia hieronymi) fibers was identified among the indigenous Wichi and across present-day Argentina and Bolivia.6 The existence of these plants that the natives had used for generations before the Europeans’ arrival could have led the newcomers to decide to replace hemp with some of them. Nevertheless, none of these plant species clearly replaced European hemp in the manufacture of rigging, but rather served as effective complements to the logistical needs that the Europeans faced in their incursion, occupation, settlement and constitution of an economic system of dominion over the new continent. While a preference for European hemp for rigging remained, this was not the case with sail-making, for which Spaniards readily employed the fabrics manufactured by the indigenous people of Cajamarca and Chachapoyas since pre-Columbian times. With the arrival of the Iberian settlers in these regions, the natives adapted their traditional manufacturing forms to the standards of European rigging. This adaptation required natives to adjust their traditional economies to the newcomers’ needs in order to supply a distribution network linking the manufacturing zones to the markets, ports and naval facilities of the Spanish Pacific (Góngora 1970, 453; Juan and Ulloa 1826, 87; Cooney 1979). However, the production of rigging with American fibers turned out to be much more complicated. Let us, therefore, analyze the interaction between imperial needs and the availability and adequacy of these plant alternatives. From a chronological perspective, the Spanish colonizers first had to meet the rigging demands of the ships bound for the new territories. As dominion over the American continent became increasingly consolidated, the need for these goods increased ostensibly, because in addition to the demand from ocean-going vessels, this now extended to the coastal and river vessels operating along the American coasts. Subsequently, the consolidation of Spanish economic dominion in the new territories would also affect the growth of merchant fleets in America and, simultaneously, the military squadrons that had to defend them (Armada de Barlovento in the Caribbean or the Armada del Mar del Sur in the Pacific) (Pérez and Torres 1987). These commercial and military fleets required naval construction and maintenance centers, such as the Havana arsenal, the Guayaquil and Coatzacoalcos shipyards and the San 62 Manuel Díaz-Ordóñez Blas naval station, all reliant on supplies of rigging made with European hemp, dispatched in the vessels of the Carrera de Indias. In fact, the contract to supply processed hemp to the American colonies became a very profitable business for Spanish manufacturers and merchants after 1500, as evidenced by the participation of leading productive organizations such as the Seville cord-makers’ association, bidding for the contract to supply rigging to the Carrera in the sixteenth century.7 Contemporary correspondence and reports lead us to believe that under Spanish dominion, American fibers normally played a complementary role to European hemp in the manufacture of naval rigging. Nevertheless, American fibers could replace European hemp when the Spanish fleets entered crisis mode, due to possible delays in the arrival of hemp from Europe, or local stock shortages in the American warehouses. It was when crisis situations presented themselves that pita and henequen were supplied to complete the rigging of the ships attached to the fleet of the Viceroyalty of Peru (Romero and Contreras 2006, 154). Similarly, in 1573, Lorenzo Martínez de la Madrid, mayor of Valencia (current Venezuela), in his exposition recommending that the king create an Armada del Mar del Sur to protect the Spanish Pacific, also argued that the ropes and cables necessary for the cordage of the ships’ rigging should be made from pita (Cappa 1894, 42). Furthermore, he suggested that major repairs to the rigging of the Spanish ships arriving in the Philippines could be effected, in part, with abroma fibers (Abroma augusta L.), Calamus or sweet flag (Acorus calamus L.), and coconut fiber (Cappa 1894, 54). The possibility of using pita as a complementary commodity along with European hemp for naval rigging facilitated the development of agro-industrial production centers, such as the one established in the Ecuadorian region of Jaén (under the jurisdiction of the Real Audiencia of Quito). The relevance of this manufacturing enclave is clear because of the connection it generated between the production and the consumption of cordage, textiles and sacks in nearby towns, cities and ports (Torres de Mendoza 1868, 9: 379). These active exchanges between pita producers and the consumption of articles for Spanish imperial needs are described in texts such as the Relación General de las Poblaciones Españoles del Perú by Juan de Salazar y Villasante (Cappa 1894, 94). According to the author, the shipyard in Guayaquil benefited from its geographic proximity to the island of Puná, where the indigenous population had specialized in manufactures made with pita since pre-Columbian times and benefited from the huge demand for yarns, cordage and textiles generated at the Spanish naval installation from the middle of the sixteenth century. This activity continued to develop in the 1730s (Juan and Ulloa 1826, 62). As a final example of the use of American pita to complement European hemp in Spanish South America’s naval facilities, in 1795 the San Blas settlement recorded an annual consumption of this Mexican fiber of around 55 tons (Mosk 1939, 172). European Imperialism and Ecological Limits 63 The fact that the benefits of the ghost American fibers – to paraphrase Pomeranz– were not fully exploited, leads us to question the reasons behind this decision: was it solely due to European resistance to altering their customs or consumer habits, as occurred with other crops such as wheat, grapes or olives? Sources do not clearly point to a rejection of American plant fibers for exclusive reasons of consumer traditions, European tastes or resistance to change. On the contrary, Spanish reports generally present fairly precise comparisons detailing the final characteristics of articles manufactured with American plants, compared with those of European hemp. In other words, the Spanish colonizers were not reluctant to use what was available in terms of native plants for the manufacture of cordage and textiles. In fact, we know that American cotton was widely used in the sails of Spanish Pacific-going ships. This seems to point to the fact that the Spaniards were eminently pragmatic and practiced a degree of technical objectivity in their decision-making. The tests carried out on American fibers (resistance, traction, impermeability, etc.) manufactured as rigging showed, according to the results recorded at the time, that European hemp was far superior. The sailors and scientists, Jorge Juan and Antonio de Ulloa, rated the rigging and canvas made with pita in the shipyard in Guayaquil as far inferior to that brought from Spain, so it was only used to rig the smaller vessels (Juan and Ulloa 1826, 62). Similar technical opinions were voiced about the pita made at the San Blas station at the end of the eighteenth century.8 This qualitative differentiation of the fibers used in the Old and New World for their characteristics of greater resistance and tolerance has been discussed in some works, which emphasize that the lack of technical development in the production process would have determined the relatively low quality of American fibers compared to those produced in Europe (Alston, Mattiace and Nonnenmacher 2009, 104–5). Technical appraisals, which estimated the pita to be inferior, were repeated with the parthenium weed (Parthenium hysterophorus), with a series of experiments carried out in Mexico around 1778, which concluded with the impression that the cordages manufactured with this plant had barely half the resistance of similar ones made with European hemp.9 There are numerous reports underscoring the difficulties and the fact that the fibers extracted from the plants lacked sufficient quality and strength. Asimilar picture is presented for henequen, which could not compete with European hemp in terms of resistance throughout the modern era. Henequen was criticized for its low endurance in humid environments to the point of being disqualified for use in Spanish naval rigging.10 In addition, henequen production was very limited; first, until the invention of the mechanical harvester in the United States and its distribution in Mexico in the first half of the nineteenth century, and, second, by the invention and implantation of mechanical scrapers in textile mills in the second half of the nineteenth century (Evans 2013). 70 Manuel Díaz-Ordóñez tons per year, which Governor Córdoba mentioned in his reports for the previous century (Barros Arana 1890a, 4: 302). The Jesuit establishments had spread in the region, and by the end of 1767 they operated a vertical production structure, from the sowing of hemp to the manufacture of rigging and wick (Barros Arana 1890b, 6: 252). Around 1780, according to the authors of the time, Chile continued to produce less than one hundred tons per year (Arteta de Monteseguro 1783, 137). The quality of its sowings was so well recognized by the Spanish authorities that, in 1796, seeds of this hemp were sent to New Spain (Serrera Contreras 1974).24 However, the importance of the hemp economy persisted with the end of Spanish dominion. Accordingly, within the framework of the Chilean emancipation movement of 1818, the independence faction offered Great Britain the export of its hemp harvests at very low prices in exchange for support in the conflict against the Spanish government (Barros Arana 1890c, 12:47). Conclusion: Towards an Ecological Explanation During the whole colonial period Spanish settlers in South America managed to establish the constant cultivation of hemp only in specific areas in Chile. The case of hemp contradicts the mercantilist thesis that defended European versus American economic prioritization, presenting two key arguments: first, the Spanish empire, far from promoting its prohibition or limitation, put in place measures to support the plant’s migration and agro-industry in America; second, continuous experiments were carried out to obtain alternative ghost fibers, given the existence of different plant species in the American biota (pita, henequen, maguey and caraguatá), while it is true that the Spanish authorities had to conclude that these could not compete with European hemp on account of its very distinctive technical characteristics suitable for the construction of rigging. The use of cotton, woven by the inhabitants of Cajamarca and Chachapoyas, in the manufacture of sails destined for Pacific ships is the best example of Spanish duality in the strategic supply of these materials in America: tested and integrated into the supply of naval equipment for the region and, at the same time, replacing the scarce supply of European hemp canvas imported from Spain. In short, this overall context coincides with Pomeranz’s concept of colonial ghost acreage. While the ships sailing in the Spanish Pacific were supplied with this Chilean production of hemp and the sails made with native American cotton, the Atlantic continued to suffer a marked shortage of these manufactured goods required in shipbuilding. For this reason, an establishment such as the naval dockyard of Havana, which launched more than one hundred ships during the eighteenth century, continued to depend on the rigging and sail mostly made with Russian hemp at factories located at the Spanish mainland ports of Ferrol and Cadiz. The limited Spanish European Imperialism and Ecological Limits 71 success with hemp on American soil brings us closer to the concept of connected stories, in which the motherland, which had previously acted as the driving force of this agricultural development in its overseas possessions, was forced, partly by the difficulties it faced as a result of interruptions in the supply of Russian hemp brought about by European wars, to reactivate policies of national agricultural development that ended up altering the agrarian landscapes of large areas of domestic Spanish territory, such as La Rioja and Granada. Our current research will try to clarify why Spanish authorities were unable to secure adequate hemp crops in America, while they managed to increase its production on the Peninsula (Díaz-Ordóñez 2016, 2006b). At the time, some observers blamed Indians who had “no instruction in the matter, no knowledge of the plant, no idea to form the spinning machine, and weave”.25 But this explanation seems inadequate as many practitioners and experts in the field, who could have trained the natives, obtained licenses in Spain to travel and settle in the Indies. In the eighteenth century, the dispatch of technical instructions to guide the farmers in their harvesting activities intensified. Therefore, hemp’s failure to prosper in southern Spanish America derived from neither a lack of Spanish interest nor farmers’ poor agricultural knowledge in the New World. The ecology of hemp itself suggests further explanations for its limited spread in America. Political, commercial and social considerations may have influenced the growth of hemp less than other requirements, including light, climate and soil, may have influenced. As has been pointed out, the conditions of the sowing temperature, which benefited the Russian territories of Belarus or Ukraine, seem to have harmed the Spanish in their American enterprise. Hence, environmental contexts and ecological constraints require more attention in the future. Notes 1. This research has been carried out within the framework of the project HAR2014–53797-P “Globalización Ibérica: Redes entre Asia y Europa y los cambios en las pautas de Consumo en Latinoamérica” [Iberian Globalization: Networks between Asia and Europe and Changes in Consumption Patterns in Latin America] financed by Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Spain, of which the principal investigator is Bartolomé Yun-Casalilla. 2. Bouby 2002, 89–92; Kroll 2001; Wild 2002, 7. 3. Romano 1962, 575; Unger 1992, 248; Van Zanden 2000, 82; Maddison 2001, 77; Aldcroft and Sutcliffe 2005, 36. 4. López de Velasco 1894, 95; Sánchez Valverde 1862, 66; Benítez 2013. 5. Zorita 1909, 1:128; García Icazbalceta 1858, 1:244; La Renaudière 1844, 40. 6. Charlevoix 1910, 1:42; López de Velasco 1894, 551; Napp 1876, 273. 7. Archivo General de Indias (hereafter AGI), Indiferente, 443, L.35. Cordmakers’ guild to the officials of the Casa de la Contratación. Madrid; 25 October1689. 8. AGI, Indiferente, 101. Capellán de San Blas; Mexico, 19 June1792. 72 Manuel Díaz-Ordóñez 9. AGI, Indiferente, 100. Andrés Gómez Moreno a José de Gálvez; Madrid, 12 November1778. 10. Archivo Histórico Nacional (hereafter AHN), CODICES, L. 729. Indies dictionary of government and legislation. C. Tom. I (CABCER). Voz Cáñamo. 11. Puente y Olea 1900, 416; Iglesias Gómez 2008, 268; Rio Moreno 1991, 166. 12. AHN, CODICES, L. 729. Indies dictionary of government and legislation. C. Tom. I (CABCER). Voz Cáñamo. 13. Dewey 1913, 291; Mosk 1939, 171; Hill 1983, 56; Small and Marcus 2002, 284. 14. AHN, CODICES, L. 729. Indies dictionary of government and legislation. C. Tom. I (CABCER). Voz Cáñamo. 15. Archivo General de Notarías de Ciudad de México (Hereafter AGNCM), SDHN/371, Notary 1, Vol. 8, Leg. 4. 11 October1563. 16. AGNCM, SDHN/5224, Notaries Office 1, Vol. 9, Leg. 12, 421/421v. 12 January1575. 17. Díaz-Ordóñez and Rodríguez-Hernández 2017, 7; Díaz-Ordóñez 2005. 18. Serrano y Sanz 1908, 170; Torres de Mendoza 1868, 9:291 and 428; Cobo 1891, II:418; Díaz-Ordóñez 2017, 77. 19. Díaz-Ordóñez 2005; Keller and Silva Castro 1960, 24; Alcedo 1788, 4:356; Gay 1862, 15. 20. Góngora 1970, 25; Contreras Cruces 1999. 21. Errázuriz Valdivieso 1881, 1:411; De Ramón 1960, 90. 22. AGI, Chile, 19, R. 7, N. 69. Luis de Córdoba y Arce; Concepción, 1 February1627. 23. AGI, Audiencia of Chile, Leg. 11. Santiago de Chile, 24 May1646 24. AGI, Indiferente, 1559. Viceroy of New Spain to Viceroy of Peru; Mexico, 12 January1796. 25. Royal Heritage. Royal Library, Manuscripts II/622, f. 82v-84v Bibliography Alcedo, Antonio de. 1788. Diccionario geográfico-histórico de las Indias Occidentales ó América: es á saber : de los reynos del Peru, Nueva España, TierraFirme, Chile y nuevo reyno de Granada : con la descripcion de sus provincias, naciones, ciudades, villas, pueblos, rios, montes, costas, puertos, islas, arzobispados, obispados, audiencias, virreynatos, gobiernos, corregimientos, y fortalezas, frutos y produciones ; con expresion de sus descubridores, conquistadores y fundatores: conventos y religiones: ereccion de sus catedrales y obispos que ha habido en ellas : y noticia de los sucesos mas notables de varios lugares: incendios, terremotos, sitios, é invasiones que han experimentado, y hombres illustres que han producido. Vol. 4. Madrid: En la Imprenta de Manuel Gonzalez. Aldcroft, Derek Howard, and Anthony Sutcliffe. 2005. Europe in the International Economy, 1500 to 2000. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Alston, Lee J., Shannan Mattiace, and Tomas Nonnenmacher. 2009. “Coercion, Culture, and Contracts: Labor and Debt on Henequen Haciendas in Yucatán, Mexico, 1870–1915.” The Journal of Economic History 69 (1): 104–37. Arteta de Monteseguro, Antonio. 1783. Discurso instructivo sobre las ventajas que puede conseguir la industria de Aragón con la nueva ampliación de puertos... En Madrid: Imprenta Real. European Imperialism and Ecological Limits 73 Barros Arana, Diego. 1890a. Historia general de Chile. Vol. 4. Santiago: Jover. ———. 1890b. Historia general de Chile. Vol. 6. Santiago: Jover. ———. 1890c. Historia general de Chile. Vol. 12. Santiago: Jover. Benítez, Fernando. 2013. Los indios de México IV. Vol. IV. México, D.F.: Ediciones Era. Biscay, Acarette du. 1943. Relación de un viaje al Río de la Plata y de allí por tierra al Perú: Con observaciones sobre los habitantes, sean indios o españoles, las ciudades, el comercio, la fertilidad y las riquezas de esta parte de América. Buenos Aires: Ed. Alfer& Vays. Bouby, Laurent. 2002. “Le Chanvre (Cannabis Sativa L.) : Une Plante Cultivée à La Fin de l’âGe Du Fer En France Du Sud-Ouest ?” Comptes Rendus Palevol 1 (2): 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1631-0683(02)00015-5. Campos, Isaac. 2012. Home Grown: Marijuana and the Origins of Mexico’s War on Drugs. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Cappa, Ricardo. 1894. Estudios críticos acerca de la dominación española en América. Parte tercera. Industria naval. Madrid: Librería Católica de Gregorio del Amo. Charlevoix, Pierre-François-Xavier de. 1910. Historia del Paraguay. Vol. 1. Madrid: Libreria General de Victoriano Suarez. Cobo, Bernabé. 1891. Historia del Nuevo Mundo. Edited by Marcos Jiménez de la Espada. Vol. II. Seville: Imp. de E. Rasco. Consejo de Indias. 1681. Recopilacion de leyes de los reynos de las Indias: mandadas imprimir, y publicar por la Magestad Catolica del rey Don Carlos II. Nuestro Señor: va dividida en quatro tomos, con el indice general, y al principio de cada tomo el indice especial de los titulos, que contiene. En Madrid: Por Julián de Paredes. Contreras Cruces, Hugo. 1999. “Servicio Personal y Economía Comunitaria En Los Cacicazgos Indígenas de Aconcagua Durante El Siglo XVII, 1599–1652.” Diálogo Andino 18: 121–51. www.academia.edu/2063705/ Servicio_personal_y_econom%C3%ADa_comunitaria_en_los_cacicazgos_ ind%C3%ADgenas_de_Aconcagua_durante_el_siglo_XVII_1599-1652. Cooney, Jerry W. 1979. “AColonial Naval Industry: The ‘Fabrica de Cables’ of Paraguay.” Revista de Historia de América 85: 105–26. Crosby, Alfred W. 1986. Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900–1900. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. De Ramón, Armando. 1960. “La Encomienda de]uan de Cuevas a La Luz de Nuevos Documentos 1574–1583.” Boletín de La Academia Chilena de La Historia 62: 52–107. Dewey, Lyster H. 1913. ‘Hemp’. In Yearbook of The United States Department of Agriculture, 283–346. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Díaz-Ordóñez, Manuel. 2005. “El Cáñamo y La Corona Española En Ultramar: América y Filipinas (Siglos XVI-XVIII).” Revista de Historia Naval 90: 45–60. ———. 2006a. “El Empleo Del Esparto En La Cordelería Naval Española de La Antigüedad Hasta El Siglo XVIII.” Tiempos Modernos, Revista de Historia Moderna 5 (14). www.tiemposmodernos.org/tm3/index.php/tm/article/ view/70/102. ———. 2006b. “Si En La Comisión de Marina Te Vieres...: Las Dificultades Salariales y de Promoción de Un Técnico Comisionado de La Armada Real En El Setecientos.” Revista de Historia Naval 24 (95): 71–88. 74 Manuel Díaz-Ordóñez ———. 2009. Amarrados al negocio: reformismo borbónico y suministro de Jarcia para la Armada Real (1675–1751). Madrid: Ministerio de Defensa, Secretaría General Técnica. ———. 2016. “La comisión del cáñamo en Granada. Sustituir la dependencia báltica como estrategia defensiva del Imperio español en el siglo XVIII.” Vegueta: Anuario de la Facultad de Geografía e Historia 16: 93–123. ———. 2017. “Los Pros y Los Contras de La Guerra Como Motor de La Globalización Del Cáñamo En América En El Siglo XVII.” In Comercio, Guerra y Finanzas En Una Época En Transición (Siglos XVII-XVIII), edited by Antonio José Rodríguez Hernández, Julio Arroyo Vozmediano, and Juan Antonio Sánchez Belén, 61–90. Valladolid: Ediciones Castilla. ———. 2019. “Las nuevas periferias americanas en la circulación de cáñamo y jarcia para la construcción naval militar española en el siglo XVIII.” Magallanica 6 (11): 181–212. Díaz-Ordóñez, Manuel, and José Antonio Rodríguez-Hernández. 2017. “Cannabis sativa y Chile (1577–1700): un insumo al servicio del imperio.” TEMPUS Revista en Historia General 6: 1–21. https://idus.us.es/xmlui/ handle/11441/68891. Edwards, Kevin J., and Graeme Whittington. 1992. “Male and Female Plant Selection in the Cultivation of Hemp, and Variations in Fossil Cannabis Pollen Representation.” The Holocene 2 (1): 85–87. https://doi. org/10.1177/095968369200200111. Errázuriz Valdivieso, Crescente. 1881. Seis años de la historia de Chile: (23 de diciembre de 1598–9 de abril de 1605) : memoria historica escrita en cumplimiento de los estatutos universitarios. Vol. 1. Santiago de Chile: Imprenta Nacional. Evans, Sterling. 2013. Bound in Twine: The History and Ecology of the HenequenWheat Complex for Mexico and the American and Canadian Plains, 1880– 1950. College Station: Texas A& M University Press. Faeti, V., G. Mandolino, and P. Ranalli. 1966. “Genetic Diversity of Cannabis Sativa Germplasm Based on RAPD Markers. Plant Breed.” Plant Breeding 115 (5): 367–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.1996.tb00935.x. Fernández, León. 1889. Historia de Costa Rica durante la dominación española 1502–1821. Madrid: Tip. de M. Ginés Hernández. Foster, Erich. 1996. “History of Hemp in Chile.” Journal of the International Hemp Association 9 (3): 72–7. García Icazbalceta, Joaquin. 1858. Colección de documentos para la historia de México. Vol. 1. México: Librería de J. M. Andrade. Gay, Claudio. 1862. Historia física y política de Chile: según documentos adquiridos en esta república durante doce años de residencia en ella y publicada bajo los auspicios del Supremo Gobierno. T. 1 Agricultura. Paris: En casa del autor. Gerhard, Peter. 2000. Geografía Histórica de La Nueva España 1519–1821. México: UNAM. Góngora, Mario. 1970. Encomenderos y estancieros: estudios acerca de la constitución social aristocrática de Chile después de la conquista : 1580–1660. Santiago de Chile: Universidad de Chile, Sede de Valparaiso, Area de humanidades, Departamento de historia. Goodman, David. 2001. El Poderío naval español: historia de la armada española del siglo XVII. Translated by Juan Pedro Campos. Barcelona: Península Ediciones. European Imperialism and Ecological Limits 75 Hill, Robert J. 1983. “Marijuana, Cannabis Sativa L.” Regulatory Horticulture. Weed Circular 9 (1–2): 57–66. Hopkins, Terence K., and Immanuel Wallerstein. 1986. “Commodity Chains in the World-Economy Prior to 1800.” Review (Fernand Braudel Center) 10 (1): 157–70. www.jstor.org/stable/40241052. Humboldt, Alexander von. 1822. Ensayo político sobre el reino de la NuevaEspaña. Vol. 2. 4 vols. París: Casa de Rosa. ———. 1836. Ensayo político sobre Nueva España. Perpiñán: Librería de Lecointe. Iglesias Gómez, Laura María. 2008. La Transferencia de Tecnología Agronómica de España a América de 1492 a 1598. Madrid: Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio. Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas. Juan, Jorge, and Antonio de Ulloa. 1826. Noticias secretas de América. London: Imprenta de R. Taylor. Keller, Carlos, and Raúl Silva Castro. 1960. “Los orígenes de Quillota.” Academia Chilena de la Historia, Boletín 26 (61): 97–130. Kroll, Helmut. 2001. “Literature on Archaeological Remains of Cultivated Plants (1999/2000).” Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 10 (1): 33–60. https:// doi.org/10.1007/PL00013368. La Renaudière, Philippe François. 1844. Historia de Méjico. Barcelona: Imprenta del Imparcial. Levanto, Horacio. 1620. Memorial sorbe [sic] el trato de la China con Nueua España, y estos Reynos dirigido al Señor Don Fernando Carrillo...Presidente del... Consejo de Indias. s.l.: s.n. López de Velasco, Juan. 1894. Geografía y descripción universal de las Indias: desde el año 1571 al de 1574. Madrid: Establecimiento Tipográfico de Fortanet. Maddison, Angus. 2001. The World Economy a Millennial Perspective. París: OECD. Marichal, Carlos. 2017. “Cajas de La Real Hacienda de La América Española.” Base de datos histórica. Cajas de La Real Hacienda de La América Española. 2017. http://realhacienda.colmex.mx/. Mörner, Magnus. 1990. “Economía Rural y Sociedad Colonial En Las Posesiones Españolas de Sudamerica.” In Historia de América Latina, edited by Leslie Bethell, 3:122–47. Barcelona: Crítica. Mosk, Sanford A. 1939. “Subsidized Hemp Production in Spanish California.” Agrihist Agricultural History 13 (4): 171–75. Mukherjee, Ashutosh, Satyesh Chandra Roy, Subir De Bera, Hong-En Jiang, Xiao Li, and Cheng-Sen Li. 2008. “Results of Molecular Analysis of an Archaeological Hemp (Cannabis Sati).” Genetic Resources Crop Evolution 55: 481–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-008-9343-9. Napp, Ricardo. 1876. La República Argentina. Buenos Aires: Impreso por la Sociedad Anónima. Pérez-Mallaína Bueno, Pablo Emilio, and Bibiano Torres Ramírez. 1987. La Armada del Mar del Sur. Seville: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos. Pomeranz, Kenneth. 2000. The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Puente y Olea, Manuel de la. 1900. Los trabajos geográficos de la Casa de Contratación. Seville: Escuela Tipográfica y Librería Salesianas. 76 Manuel Díaz-Ordóñez Quiroz, Francisco. 2010. “Industria urbana y rural en el Perú colonial tardío.” In Compendio de historia económica del Perú III: la economía del período colonial tardío, by Magdalena Chocano, Cristina Mazzeo, and Ramiro Flores, edited by Carlos Contreras, 3:169–221. Historia Económica 7. Lima: Banco Central de Reserva del Perú y IEP Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Riera, Santiago, José Antonio López-Sáez, and Ramón Julià. 2006. “Lake Responses to Historical Land Use Changes in Northern Spain: The Contribution of Non-Pollen Palynomorphs in a Multiproxy Study.” Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 141 (1–2): 127–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. revpalbo.2006.03.014. Rio Moreno, Justo Lucas del. 1991. Los inicios de la agricultura europea en el nuevo mundo 1492–1542. Seville: ASAJA-Seville: Caja Rural de Huelva : Caja Rural de Sevilla. Romano, Ruggiero. 1962. “Per Una Valutazione Della Flotta Mercantile Europea Alla Fine Del Secolo XVIII.” Studi in Onore Di Amintore Fanfani 5: 573–91. Milán: Giuffré, A. Romero, Emilio, and Carlos Contreras. 2006. Historia económica del Perú. Lima: UAP y Fondo Editorial UNMSM. Sánchez Valverde, Antonio. 1862. Idea del valor de la isla española de Santo Domingo. Santo Dominuo [sic]: Imprenta nacional. Serrano y Sanz, Manuel. 1908. Relaciones históricas y geográficas de América central. Madrid: V. Suárez. Serrera Contreras, Ramón María. 1974. Cultivo y manufactura de lino y cáñamo en Nueva España, 1777–1800. Seville: Escuela de Estudios HispanoAmericanos de Sevilla. Small, Ernest, and David Marcus. 2002. “Hemp: ANew Crop with New Uses for North America.” In Trends in New Crops and New Uses, edited by J. Janick and A. Whipkey, 284–326. Alexandria: ASHS Press. Torquemada, Fray Juan de. 1983. Monarquía Indiana. Vol. III. México: Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas/UNAM. Torquemada, Juan de. 1615. Ia parte de los veynte y un libros rituales y monarchia yndiana: con el origen y guerras de los yndios occidentales, de sus poblaçones, descubrimiento, conquista, conuersion y otras cosas marauillosas de la mesma tierra : distribuydos en tres tomos. Seville: Matías Clavijo. Torres de Mendoza, Luis. 1868. Colección de documentos inéditos relativos al descubrimiento, conquista y organización de las antiguas posesiones españolas de América y Oceanía. Edited by Archivo General de Indias. Vol. 9. Madrid: Imprenta Frias y Compañía. Unger, Richard W. 1992. “The Tonnage of Europe’s Merchant Fleets, 1300– 1800.” The American Neptune 52: 247–61. Van Zanden, Jan Luiten. 2000. “Early Modern Economic Growth: ASurvey of the European Economy (1500–1800).” In Early Modern Capitalism, edited by Maarten R. Prak, 69–87. Londres: Routledge. http://depot.knaw. nl/2252/. Velasco, Juan de. 1833. Historia del reino de Quito en la América Meridional (1789). Vol. 1. Quito: Imprenta del Gobierno. Vries, P. H. H. 2001. “Are Coal and Colonies Really Crucial? Kenneth Pomeranz and the Great Divergence.” Journal of World History 12 (2): 407–46. European Imperialism and Ecological Limits 77 Wild, J. P.2002. “The Textile Industries of Roman Britain.” Britannia 33: 1–42. Zavala, Silvio Arturo. 1987. El servicio personal de los indios en la Nueva España. Vol. III. México: El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Históricos; El Colegio Nacional. Zorita, Alonso de. 1909. Historia de la Nueva España. Vol. 1. Madrid: Librería General de Victoriano Suárez.