Local Mestas and the Mesta

Abstract

Prof. Bishko has criticized the established theory that the Mesta was established by unifying local mestas. His argument is mainly based upon the fact that the local mestas were not so numerous and old as thought before. By examining historical documents, the author of this paper has confirmed that the grounds on which Bishko's argument are based must be admitted, though some amendments are necessary. As Bishko's view is confined to historical documents, and his attention is concentrated upon the term "mesta", pastoral organization that does not appear in historical documents is thought to have not existed and pastoral organization that was not called "mesta" is not considered to be mesta. According to such a method, local mestas naturally become fewer and more recent. In many regions where people raised stock, it is natural that problems should arise among the herdsmen. They held meetings to resolve such problems. The most important issue was to determine the ownership of the stock; that is, to return animals that has mixed with a strange flock to their original owner. These animals were called "mestas" (latin mixta, p. p. of miscere, to mix), and the meetings also came to be called "mestas". By acting jointly the herdsmen can be said to have formed a kind of organization. This organization should also be called mesta. Perhaps local mestas, existed wherever the stock rasing is found. The author estimates that there were many local mestas before the Mesta was established, but does not agree with the established theory. Local mestas were under the protection of the towns and functioned in the tierra of the towns, while the Mesta was a organization that the herdsmen who stepped over town boundaries and embarked on transhumance formed under the protection of the super-regional authority, the Crown. The two organizations were different in character, so it is impossible to see the establishment of the Mesta through a fusion of local mestas.