Written by Geoffrey A P Groesbeck

Introduction

There is much still to discover regarding the early history of the Jesuit missions (reducciones¹) of Chiquitos² (1691-1767). By now it has been reasonably well documented³, albeit in greater detail in Spanish and German than in English. Over the last three decades, scholarly research on these missions’ individual and collective artistic, musical, and religious expressions and traditions has contributed valuable information that has increased our understanding of this unique hybrid culture.⁴ It also has led to further studies in other fields, including acculturation studies, ethnology, Latin American colonial history, missiology, and sociology.

Until the devastating fires of 2019 and 2020 (and resurgent again in 2021, even as this paper is written) put the region largely off limits, a by-product of earlier investigations was a modest but sustained growth in cultural tourism, first hinted at in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s inscription of six Chiquitos churches (templos) and mission complexes (complejos)⁵ as World Heritage Sites in 1990⁶, subsequently furthered by the outstanding work of the Santa Cruz de la Sierra⁷-based Asociación Pro Arte y Cultura, chiefly through its increasingly popular biennial musical festival “Misiones de Chiquitos”.⁸ Other groups are also active in the cause of responsible tourism, and the nascent emphasis on cultural tourism may one day prove the surest path to providing a much-needed sustainable development mechanism in the region.⁹

But the history of these missions following the expulsion of the Jesuits’ (Extrañamiento) is a very different story. It is rarely taken into account in any form or language. This long silence of more than 250 years has obscured or even erased large sections of the area’s post-colonial history, making any understanding of the earlier colonial period difficult and prone to error-laden inferences.¹⁰ With the exception of a few travelogues¹¹ and a handful of obscure works¹², little has been documented on the more than two centuries that passed from the departure of the Jesuits in 1767 to the initial restoration efforts of templos and complejos led by Hans Roth in the late 1970s. A danger thus exists that the post-expulsion history of these former reducciones will be lost or left open to misunderstanding by selective interpretation.

Until recently, the story of the Chiquitos settlements after 1767 was shrouded in mystery and incoherent. Yet we know that in the face of insuperable odds, the impoverished inhabitants of the area – first the indigenous peoples and then the settlers who replaced them – never entirely forgot or discontinued the unique, syncretic practices that had been adopted with Jesuit encouragement centuries before. Instead, they held onto and passed them along, in many cases virtually intact, from generation to generation until the beginning of the current century. (A handful of these, in particular certain dances and processions, exist unchanged to this day.) If a seventeenth-century Jesuit missionary were to find himself now on the dusty streets of most of these communities, he likely would find much as he left it centuries ago.

Were the history of these towns to be told factually, an interesting story would emerge. It would encompass not just the enforced departure of the Jesuits, but also the steady erosion of the reducciones as they spiralled into a state of lassitude and decline at the hands of secular clergy, followed by their transfer to another Catholic religious order, the Franciscans (who still exercise spiritual control in many of the Chiquitania settlements¹³) before being revived – ironically – by Jesuit interest in their preservation, starting in 1957 and culminating in the arrival of Hans Roth (then still a Jesuit) in 1972. To understand what these towns’ role in the regional and national history of Bolivia has been, what they represent today, and what their future as viable communities may be, it is imperative that this long silence be broken and an accurate account be made.

The Expulsion and Its Immediate Aftermath (1767-1776)

In historical hindsight, the Extrañamiento now seems almost a foregone conclusion given the economic and political backdrops of the time. The Chiquitos reducciones were phenomenally successful establishments in every regard, and eventually and inevitably were caught up in a battle between two colonial powers, Spain and Portugal. The latter’s slave traders (mamelucos) in nearby Brazil wanted to expand westward, while the Santa Cruz de la Sierra-based ranchers with enormous encomiendas and estancias coveted the fertile lands of the mission settlements further east. It did not help matters that thriving economies and a well-ordered way of life had earned these settlements much jealousy on the part of the civil authorities. The missions, scattered throughout the vast Chiquitania, were semi-independent states, with their own royal exemptions, laws, and even private militias. After observing several decades of unprecedented prosperity, both powers were suspicious of the reducciones’ obscure political status and sought to exploit it.

The Jesuit presence in Chiquitos officially came to an end on 27 February 1767, when the Spanish king Carlos III (1759-1788) ordered the expulsion of all Jesuits from of his realms.¹⁴ Those in Portuguese Brazil had been expelled in 1759; France’s Louis XV (1715-1774), under extreme pressure, reluctantly followed suit in 1764. The Extrañamiento included the scarcely two dozen¹⁵ missionaries who watched over the vast territories of Chiquitos and Moxos. The Jesuits as a meaningful entity were through, although the Order was not officially suppressed by Pope Clement XIV in 1773¹⁶, to be revived by Pope Pius VII in 1814.

By September 1767, all but one of the missionaries in Chiquitos had been forcibly removed and most of the inhabitants of the reducciones had abandoned them for the forests from whence they had come. The majority of the Jesuits themselves, most of whom were aged and many of whom were ill and undernourished, died as a result of hardships endured in the long overland journey to Lima and from there to Europe.¹⁷ One of the most famous, the polymath Martin Schmid (known to have built at least three of the Chiquitos templos), survived the return voyage and died in his native Switzerland.¹⁸ The last Jesuit to leave the area was the elderly Narciso Patzi on 10 May 1768, his departure delayed due to a grave illness. He was slung on the back of a horse and died soon afterwards.¹⁹

With the Jesuits gone, the settlements quickly fell into disarray. Oversight was given to cruceños who governed in absentia from Santa Cruz de la Sierra. They set about confiscating the property and goods that the Jesuits and natives had painstakingly acquired and conserved for decades. It was wholesale looting in every respect, with even some clergy involved.²⁰ The attrition of population was relentless. The pre-expulsion high of at least 24,188 inhabitants²¹ throughout the eleven settlements in the Chiquitania in 1767 is a figure that does not include non-baptised residents; the actual number might have been as high as 37,000.²² Just two years later, the population of the missions had fallen to 19,482.²³

In 1776, the government of the Chiquitania (then a much larger territory than now) was militarised by the Spanish Crown and administered from the newly created, far-away Viceroyalty of Río de la Plata in what is now Argentina. In ecclesiastical terms, all of the reducciones had been secularised nearly a decade before by the Dominican Bishop Francisco Ramón Herboso y Figueroa, with the Diocese of Santa Cruz de la Sierra assuming spiritual control. Herboso wanted nothing to do with the Chiquitos settlements, and proposed (unsuccessfully) to translate the diocesan see to Cochabamba.²⁴ Under his authority, secular priests from Santa Cruz de la Sierra operated with complete independence, in most cases as absentee clerics.

Even so, in the first decade or so after the expulsion and the subsequent departure of many of the towns’ first inhabitants, certain efforts were made to maintain their buildings. The original templo of one of the last reducciones to be founded (1755), Santa Ana de Velasco, likely was constructed by the town’s inhabitants at this time. Most scholars date its construction to between 1770 and 1790.²⁵ Improvements also were made to the templos of San Miguel de Velasco (1767-69), San Rafael de Velasco (1770), and San Ignacio de Velasco (ca 1772), all possibly by the noted artisan Antonio Rojas.²⁶ Beyond these isolated examples, however, there is little information to indicate the settlements did anything but decline further.

The Half-Century to Independence (1776-1825)

This steady spiral downward continued apace over the next half-century or so, as the former reducciones fell into a state of decrepitude. Bishop Herboso was named archbishop of La Plata (now Sucre) in 1776. His successor but one, Alejandro José de Ochea, made a courageous decision to inform the viceroy that “the decadence of the [Chiquitos] missions was now manifest everywhere” and proposed that spiritual control over them be taken away from the cruceño clergy (of which he himself was one) and handed over to the Franciscans²⁷, something that came to pass, but not for many decades. Ochea died in 1791, and his immediate successors continued Herboso’s policy of heavy-handed rule from Santa Cruz de la Sierra. Administratively, one change of note was that in 1804 Santa Ana de Velasco was made the provincial capital (it had been San Xavier until then).²⁸

These turbulent years saw Spain’s grip on the area weaken, but not loosen completely until 1825. In the intervening years, several uprisings took place throughout eastern Bolivia (then still technically part of the Viceroyalty of Río de la Plata). The first was the 20 August 1809 rebellion in Santa Cruz de la Sierra.²⁹ A little more than six years later, on 07 October 1815, the now long-forgotten but bloody Battle of Santa Bárbara³⁰ took place outside of San Rafael de Velasco. This was the only known fight waged in Chiquitos during Bolivia’s War of Independence (1809-1825).

In one of the great ironies of South American history, on that date the future Bolivian independence leader Ignacio Warnes (he was himself Argentine), slaughtered roughly one thousand Chiquitano, who had been duped into fighting for the Spanish crown. Some accounts still note that Warnes defeated a contingent of “Spanish” troops outside of Santa Bárbara. The statement is barely truthful: almost every “soldier” was a Chiquitano who had been told he was fighting against slavers and bandits.

The few revolutionaries (almost none of whom were Bolivians) who fell fighting under Warnes’ command are nonetheless numbered amongst the first martyrs in Bolivia’s struggle for independence. The hapless Chiquitano who died without understanding what had occurred are rarely mentioned. For all purposes and intents, the battle was a pointless slaughter. After realising the Chiquitano conscripts had been deceived by the Royalists, Warnes enlisted many of the survivors into his own army.³¹

For another decade the missions veered from serving royalist armies to revolutionary sympathisers, but for the most part were untouched by the long struggle for independence…as far as we know. As the historian Tonelli noted, the years between 1810 and 1825 are among the least studied in the country’s history, and events in Chiquitos during this period are only tangentially known.³²

The Jesuit reducción system – highly regarded for its economic efficiency and consistent ability to generate surpluses – remained in place in the towns of the region, only with less autonomy and fewer inhabitants to contribute to the enterprise. On 15 February 1825, the city of Santa Cruz de la Sierra declared itself independent of Spain,³³ on 6 August allowing itself to be annexed to the newly formed Republic of Bolivia³⁴ (until then known as Upper Peru).

As the now ex-missions sank further into oblivion, their remaining inhabitants assumed a greater role in the care of their still-beautiful templos and complejos. With the Jesuits gone and the secular clergy of Santa Cruz de la Sierra rarely present, townspeople passed on traditions that the original indigenous inhabitants had forged with the Jesuits, and must have maintained maintained their churches (in some cases making extensive renovations) based solely on what they remembered or had heard passed down from others who knew these reducciones in the days of the Jesuits. Primary-source documentation for who performed this work is almost unknown, but some evidence exists that this labour of love was carried out by local artesans and others in the Velasco communities of San Ignacio, Santa Ana, San Miguel, San Rafael, and most likely elsewhere.³⁵

Independence to Mid-Century (1825-1850)

Bolivia’s declaration of independence, far from defining matters, immediately plunged the Chiquitania into a state of chaos. The last royalist governor of Chiquitos, Sebastián Ramos,³⁶ in early March of 1825 persuaded the new republic to allow him to retain his post. Almost immediately after assuming his new role, he offered to turn the territory over to Brazil, at that time an empire under Pedro I (1822-1831). On 14 April 1825, Brazil obliged, declaring Ramos its governor in the region, and annexing it to the state of Mato Grosso. Eleven days later, Brazil sent 200 troops to the region to back up its claim and took the provincial capital of Santa Ana de Velasco without a shot being fired.³⁷

In response, the Bolivian general (and soon to become the country’s second president), Mariscal Antonio José de Sucre, threatened to pacify the region by force and called for Ramos’ execution as a traitor. However, diplomacy took its place, and the anticipated reprisal never came. Within two months, the Brazilian government decided the situation was not to its liking and the tiny reducciones not worth fighting over. After looting the templos of Santa Ana de Velasco and San Rafael de Velaco, it withdrew. By year’s end, the matter was resolved and the Chiquitania had returned to Bolivia, amazingly, with Ramos still its governor, albeit from the safety of Brazil.³⁸

After his self-imposed exile, Ramos petitioned successfully to return to Bolivia, set up shop in Santo Corazón as its de facto mayor, and later was made a territorial judge and ambassador without portfolio by the same government that nearly had him killed.³⁹ In 1844, he played an important role in the development of San Matías, an outpost on the Brazilian border, although he did not, as Tonelli claims,⁴⁰ found the town. He remained in the Chiquitania until his death, living a comfortable existence as a rancher, smuggler, and well-respected man of affairs.

By the time the French explorer Alcides D’Orbigny visited the missions in 1830-1⁴¹, although the towns culturally were still similar to what they had been in the Jesuits’ heyday, their economic, political, and social decline was even more painfully evident than it had been to Bishop Ochea decades before.⁴² Most of the templos and their complejos continued to be improved at the peoples’ expense but suffered irreversible decay.

San Juan Bautista, plagued by a devastating fire in 1811, lost its templo completely and was relocated (and renamed San Juan de Taperas) by 1830, by which time the original settlement was no more.⁴³ All but three of the eleven settlements had fewer inhabitants than they contained more than a half-century before. In 1830, the population stood at an all-time low of 15,316.⁴⁴ The few remaining indigenous peoples fled the missions now under the oppressive administration of the Bolivian government, returning to the same forests from which they were first called by the Jesuit missionaries a century earlier. Those who remained found themselves little better than chattel, contending with newly arriving settlers from Santa Cruz de la Sierra for even the most basic civil rights.

In 1840, almost 50 years after his death, Bishop Ochea’s suggestion was partly carried out: The Franciscans, once rivals of the Jesuits for spiritual control over Bolivia, were given charge of the formerly Jesuit missions of Guarayos and Moxos⁴⁵, two territories that bordered the Chiquitania to the west. This action was to have enormous and permanent consequences for the reducciones of Chiquitos, although for the next several years these remained firmly under the control of the secular Santa Cruz de la Sierra-based clergy. In economic terms, very little changed. Gold was discovered in the far western reaches of the department in 1847,⁴⁶ but it had little effect on the mission towns.

During these years of isolation and further decay, the remaining inhabitants somehow managed – perhaps due to their isolation – if not to improve, at least to preserve their templos (although less so the complejos), all of them by now almost a century old. Apart from the efforts of Kühne, very little has been recorded on these endeavours outside of some scattered comments in Las Misiones Jesuitas.⁴⁷ A telling comment was made by the French explorer, the Comte de Castelnau, who visited the region in 1842. After seeing Santa Ana de Velasco’s lovely church (which had been looted less than two decades before by the Brazilians), he wrote “This beautiful building, surrounded by gardens, presents one of the most impressive views imaginable.”⁴⁸

The Silent Century: The End of the Reducción Era, the End of the Chaco War and Beyond (1850-1957)

More than 80 years after the last Jesuit left the Chiquitos missions, the remaining vestiges of the reducción system, once so successful and the envy of two colonial powers, were erased forever. However, the date proposed by Tonelli – 1851 – is arbitrary. As he notes, ⁴⁹ there was no official decree or order mandating the abolition of the old system; it simply had become extinct by the middle of the nineteenth century.

By that time, a demographic shift had occurred in the region: For the first time, recent mestizo immigrants from elsewhere in Santa Cruz Department outnumbered the original inhabitants (who were mostly Ayoreo, Chiquitano, Guarayo, and a few Guaraní, along with many smaller sub-families such as the Chiriguano and Zamuco). These new settlers were not indigenous peoples used to a shared existence and amenable to paternal oversight, but instead full Bolivian citizens with guaranteed legal rights, and a hunger for land. By 1880, the initial trickle of immigrants had become a flood.⁵⁰ The few older families resident in the ex missions were evicted from their dwellings; those who remained were pressed into a feudal existence little better than outright slavery. ⁵¹

On 12 October 1880, Bolivian president General Narciso Campero authorised the creation of the province of [José Miguel] Velasco, named after a former general and four-time president. San Ignacio de Velasco was made the capital, haven taken the reins of power from much-smaller Santa Ana de Velasco a few years earlier. The Chiquitos settlements were now divided between two provinces: Chiquitos and Velasco. Thirty-five years later, a new province was carved out of Chiquitos: Ñuflo de Chávez (named for the explorer and founder of what became the departmental capital, Santa Cruz de la Sierra).

The former reducciones were now politically divided between the provinces of Ñuflo de Chávez, encompassing San Xavier and Concepción with the former as capital (later translated to Concepción); Velasco, with its capital San Ignacio de Velasco, as well as the towns of Santa Ana de Velasco, San Rafael de Velasco, and San Miguel de Velasco; and Chiquitos, with its capital of San José de Chiquitos, and the former missions of Santiago and Santo Corazón (the latter now a part of Angel Sandóval province).

At the same time that the province of Velasco was created, gum rubber began to assume an important role in the economic fortunes of the Chiquitos towns. The first “Golden Age of Rubber” (Auge de la Goma) began, and more settlers entered the region. The rubber boom did not last long, however, and by 1920 it was effectively over (with a brief resurgence just before and during World War Two), to be replaced by intensive ranching and agricultural pursuits.⁵²

The natives saw themselves further marginalised and excluded from the economic gains these new commodities and activities brought to the region. Several agricultural and ranching entrepreneurs settled throughout the Chiquitania, establishing gigantic haciendas – in some respects later-day versions of colonial encomiendas – and raising cattle to supplement their earnings in the rubber sector. These new settlements did not replace the ex-missions, but whatever economic vitality there was in the old towns was diverted to the haciendas, which relied on local inhabitants for their workforce. In spite of nominal government protection⁵³ and a few vocal critics, ⁵⁴ in many ways the situation for the descendants of the original inhabitants of the missions had worsen 150 years after the Jesuits’ reluctant departures.

For all the developments that surrounded them, the former Jesuit missions of Chiquitos remained in a state of torpor until 1931, when Franciscan Order were given spiritual control over them.⁵⁵ The Apostolic Vicariate of Chiquitos⁵⁶ was established, with San Ignacio de Velasco as its seat. In the same year, another Franciscan, Berthold Bühl, was named its vicar apostolic, and Austrian Franciscan missionaries were put in charge of the former Chiquitos reducciones. By all accounts, the new missionaries would become much engaged in the daily lives of their inhabitants, and over the years did – and continue to do – much to improve their social standing.

On the other hand, the Chaco War (1932-1935), whilst a seminal date in forming the country’s collective conscience and much cited by historians as a turning point for Bolivia, did not affect the Chiquitos settlements as much as some have claimed. No battles were fought in the ex-reducciones, nor were the majority of Bolivia’s soldiers from the region (they came mainly from the altiplano to the far west).

World War II also came and went, leaving the settlements untouched. The railroad arrived, in stages, between 1939 and 1955⁵⁷, but as it passed through only San José de Chiquitos amongst the former reducciones, little localised economic benefit was derived except by the town and immediate environs. Still, through these long years of obscurity, the people of these settlements –by this time all descendants of cruceño settlers – held on to a few centuries-old traditions, completely unaware that these cherished rites and rituals were never intended for them⁵⁸ but instead for the native peoples whose territories they had usurped. With some notable exceptions,⁵⁹ the townspeople continued to maintain their templos as best they could.

As they fade further from the region’s post-Colonial era history, it is appropriate to ask here what happened – and continues to happen – to the indigenous peoples who originally inhabited it. Most, apart from those who married into settler families, reside today, still greatly marginalised from the rest of society, in semi-autonomous hamlets known as comunidades.⁶⁰ The Catholic Church continues to do much good on their behalf, and Franciscan, Jesuit, and Identine missionaries work collaboratively in an attempt to raise the standards of these impoverished communities. Some academic institutions, in particular the universities Técnica Particular de Loja and Católica Boliviana San Pablo, have worked in the field alongside these indigenous groups, as have various non-profit organisations.

The Silence Ends: 1950 to the Present

In 1957, everything changed. A Jesuit missionary visiting Bolivia, Fr Felix Plattner, travelled to the Chiquitania in an attempt to trace the peregrinations of his vocational ancestor, Fr Martin Schmid, so important in the history of the Jesuit missions in Chiquitos. Plattner was amazed at what he saw: seven large templos seemingly frozen in time, but decaying by the minute. Standing in front of the church at San Rafael de Velasco, he made a vow that he would try to save at least one of these spiritual masterpieces before all of them sank into oblivion.

Fifteen years passed, and at last, in 1972, Plattner sent a Swiss architect and fellow Jesuit,⁶¹ Hans Roth.⁶² He gave Roth six months to begin the restoration, along with round-trip air fare. Roth arrived and never went back.

The fact that these templos exist in their present restored (or in the case of San Ignacio de Velasco, reconstructed) form is due almost entirely to the genius and tenacity of Roth, a great admirer of his Jesuit predecessor Martin Schmid. Working with a few European colleagues but otherwise with entirely native talent, Roth single-handedly saved the churches – and to a great extent, their communities – from near-certain oblivion. He spent nearly three decades at this labour of love, his life’s work, and played a key role in every aspect of each church’s restoration or reconstruction.

At the time of his death in 1999, he had successfully or largely restored the templos, complejos, and numerous other colonial buildings of San Xavier, Concepción, the three Velasco missions of Santa Ana, San Rafael, and San Miguel, along with San José de Chiquitos, all now World Heritage Sites. He also oversaw the reconstruction of the church in San Ignacio de Velasco, worked on the astonishing Sanctuario Mariano de la Torre in El Chochís⁶³ and at least another 150 other sites throughout the Chiquitania and elsewhere in Bolivia. The region today would be a very different place were it not for Roth’s incredible efforts. His close collaborator Eckart Kühne summed up Roth’s work as follows.

“That which began as a short rescue action of a collapse-endangered church gradually became one of the most comprehensive and sustainable restoration projects in all of South America – not just with a view towards preservation of old monuments, but also as a means for the social, cultural, and pastoral development of the region, similar to [that of] when the buildings [first] arose. Roth worked like a missionary, only for church employers, without the backing of national authorities, without previous monument preservation instruction, and almost only with local craftsmen who were trained on the building sites and in the apprentice workshops. In addition, Roth raised over one hundred new buildings – from churches to schools and house building programs – with which he created a new regional architectural style. He founded museums and archives, defended the rights of the Indians and studied their history. This work, under less than favourable conditions, was a long learning process; the churches were restored by him with completely different methods.”⁶⁴

The Jesuits and their teams of local volunteers and European specialists did not do all of the work themselves; the Franciscans, the new guardians of these architectural masterpieces, also played a role, as did hundreds of supporters around the world. But it must be emphasised that the genius and execution of the idea, as well as its ongoing maintenance, was first and foremost a Jesuit undertaking spearheaded by Roth. These churches, largely restored to their original Jesuit-Chiquitano hybrid appearance, show little little Franciscan influence, a testament to that order’s desire to preserve their authenticity.

As a result of the work of Roth, Kühne, and their colleagues, these templos, now among the best-known of all of Bolivia’s national treasures, and their communities, can play an important role as magnets for cultural and religious tourists from the world over, who come whether to worship or simply stand in awe of these splendid monuments. They house rare musical instruments, musical scores, and centuries-old works of art. They serve to train the next generation of local artists, artisans, and architects, who remain faithful to reproducing the music, carvings, and edifices produced centuries ago. They play host every other year to the International Festival of American Baroque Music, “Misiones de Chiquitos”.⁶⁵ Perhaps most important, they provide much-needed local employment and act as regional sustainable development mechanisms.

To sum up the legacy of the post-Jesuit history of Chiquitos, it is fitting to end with another quote from Kühne.

“The very remote, long economically unimportant villages survived owing to the Christian faith of the Chiquitano Indians. When the reducción system was finally dissolved…mestizo colonisers seized the lands, herds, and workers, displaced the Indians from the village centres and altered the churches to fit their taste. In the rubber boom starting about 1880, many Chiquitano were carried out to harvest rubber as bonded labourers, or they fled into inaccessible areas. In 1931, German-speaking Franciscan missionaries took over the pastoral care of the Chiquitano. Today the old Jesuit churches are not only the parish churches of the mestizo village inhabitants, but also spiritual centres of the Indians living in the far periphery who still observe many of the festival rites and traditions from Jesuit times. With insufficient means they have long attempted to halt the pending fall of the age-weakened buildings; due to their care the churches still retain large numbers of the works of art, furniture, silver objects and music books.”⁶⁶

Written by Geoffrey A P Groesbeck

NOTES

1^ The word reducción is often incorrectly translated as “mission”. It is better considered as a settlement for indigenous peoples established by European colonists, whether religious or secular, with an explicit intent to proselytise and introduce specific religious, social, and cultural norms through shared experiences and hierarchical instruction. In the Jesuit efforts in Chiquitos, exceptions were made by colonial authorities permitting the founding of reducciones that were exclusively religious in nature, although these also had economic and military functions.

2^ The now-dated regional identifier “Chiquitos” corresponds roughly to most of the modern-day area known as the Chiquitania (la [Gran] Chiquitania), located within Bolivia’s Santa Cruz Department. The Jesuits operated throughout much of Chiquitos from their arrival in 1585 until their expulsion in 1767. Although Chiquitos per se was a loosely defined political entity under the Spanish Empire, in its incarnation as the Chiquitania it never received political status as a Bolivian geographical designation. Nonetheless, the Chiquitania comprises six provinces within Bolivia’s Santa Cruz Department: Guayaros; Ñuflo de Chávez; [José Miguel] Velasco; Ángel Sandoval; German Busch; and a (much-reduced) Chiquitos. The former Jesuit missions of Chiquitos are found in all but Guarayos province, which was considered a separate mission field (often referred to as Mojos or Moxos) by the Jesuits and their contemporaries.

3^ For references to this documentation, see the author’s “A Brief History of the Jesuit Missions of Chiquitos” in Bolivian Studies Journal, Vol. 14 (Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, 2007), endnotes 1 through 6.

4^ This synthesis of a profoundly Jesuit worldview (during the 17^th and 18^th centuries) encountering an indigenous one is sometimes referred to as Mestizo Baroque. Although accurate as a descriptor for the artistic output of this culture, the term is not an all-encompassing one. “Jesuit-indigenous” may be more apt in a broader sense.

5^ These are in San Xavier, Concepción, Santa Ana de Velasco, San Rafael de Velasco, San Miguel de Velasco, and San José de Chiquitos. San Ignacio de Velasco was not included as the original structure was demolished in 1948 (the present church dates from the late twentieth century and does not meet UNESCO’s inclusion standards). Of the remaining former Jesuit missions in the Chiquitania referenced in this paper, San Juan Bautista is in ruins, Santiago de Chiquitos’ original church was destroyed in the 1800s (the present structure dates from ca 1920), and Santo Corazón is a modern construction. See http://www.chiquitania.com/mission_churches.html for a synopsis of all the templos and complejos established by Jesuits in Chiquitos.

6^ See “United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage: Report of the World Heritage Committee, Fourteenth Session, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 7-12 December 1990” (http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom90.htm#529).

7^ A distinction is maintained in this paper between the city of Santa Cruz de la Sierra and Santa Cruz Department.

8^ For information on these festivals, see http://www.festivalesapac.com.

9^ The possibilities of cultural tourism in the Chiquitania and in particular on the former Jesuit missions are treated at length in the web site “La Gran Chiquitania: The Last Paradise” (http://www.chiquitania.com).

10^ See “A Brief History of the Jesuit Missions of Chiquitos”, in particular the introduction and first chapter.

11^ See D’ Orbigny’s Voyage dans l’Amerique Meridionale (le Brasil, la Republique Orientale de l’Uruguay, la Republique Argentine, la Patagonie, la Republique du Chili, la Republique de Bolivia, la Republique du Perou), execute pendant les annees 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829, 1830, 1831, 1832 et 1833 (in particular chapter 32). First published in nine volumes in Paris by Chez Pitois-Levrault et Cie. between 1835–1847, the 1945 edition published by Editorial Futuro in Buenos Aires is the latest version of this work. See also Francis de Castelnau, Expédition dan les parties centrales de l’Amérique du Sud, de Rio de Janeiro à Lima, et de Lima au Para; exécutée par ordre du gouvernement Français pendant les années 1843 à 1847. Published in 15 volumes in Paris by P. Bertrand between 1850-1857, the 2001 edition published by Editorial Los Amigos del Libro in La Paz (renamed En el Corazón de América del Sur (1843-1847) is the latest version.

12^ Two exceptions are works by Oscar Tonelli, Reseña histórica social y económica de la Chiquitania (Santa Cruz de la Sierra: Editorial El País, 2004) and Santa Ana: La Cenicienta Chiquitania (Santa Cruz de la Sierra: Editorial El País, 2006), although the latter treats only the history of Santa Ana de Chiquitos. Often undocumented but useful is Nino Gandarilla Guardia’s Desenredando la Independencia de Santa Cruz y sus Provincias (Santa Cruz de la Sierra: Centro de Estudios Nacionales, 2008). Brief treatments are found in La voz de los chiquitanos (Santa Cruz de la Sierra: Fondo Editorial Asociación Pro Arte y Cultura, 2006), chapter 4: “Chiquitos, Velasco y Ñuflo de Chávez, 1880-1940: Lineamientos para el estudio de las provincias chiquitanias en su transición hacia la modernidad”; Pedro Querejazu, ed., Las Misiones Jesuíticas de Chiquitos (La Paz: Fundación BHN, 1995), book II, chapters 7 and 8: “El Período Postjesuítico” and “Moxos y Chiquitos en el Siglo XIX”, and book III, chapter 1: “La Chiquitania en la Época Republicana”; and Loreto Correa (ed.), Santa Cruz en el siglo XIX (Santa Cruz de la Sierra: Editorial Universitaria, 1997), “Historia Chiquitania en la segunda mitad del siglo XIX”.

13^ Members of the order serve as parish priests and vicars apostolic in the Apostolic Vicariate of Ñuflo de Chávez (which includes the former reducciones of San Xavier and Concepción), and as bishops in the Diocese of San Ignacio de Velasco (including the cathedral town and settlements of Santa Ana de Chiquitos, San Rafael de Chiquitos, San Miguel de Chiquitos, San José de Chiquitos, Taperas – near the former mission of San Juan Bautista – and the towns of Santiago and Santo Corazón). They also serve as vicars apostolic in the neighboring Apostolic Vicariate of Camiri, where, ironically, two Jesuits serve in the administration of the territory. See http://www.iglesia.org.bo/sitio/institucion/diocesis/index_diocesis.htm.

14^ See Mariano Baptista Gumucio, Las Misiones Jesuíticas de Moxos y Chiquitos: Una Utopía Cristiana en el Oriente Boliviano, 3^rd ed. (La Paz: Lewylibros, 2003), pp 162-3.

15^ The actual number of Jesuits then in the Chiquitania was 25, with another 22 resident in the Moxos and Guarayos missions to the west. See Gabriel René Moreno, Catálogo del Archivo de Mojos y Chiquitania (con Notas de Hernando Sanabria Fernández) (La Paz: Editorial Juventud, 1973), in Tonelli, Reseña histórica social y económica de la Chiquitania (Santa Cruz de la Sierra: Editorial El País, 2004), p 120.

16^ See Gumucio, op. cit., pp 160-1, for a copy of the apostolic brief “Dominus ac Redemptor” authorising the suppression of the order.

17^ Several primary-source first-hand accounts of the expulsion and reactions to it exist, and are extracted in works by Tomichá, Tonelli and others. Antonio Menacho’s Por Tierras de Chiquitos (San Xavier: Vicario Apostólico de Ñuflo de Chávez, 1991), pp 113-27, offers an excellent treatment. For reactions to the Extrañamiento elsewhere in greater New Spain, see as an example Miguel León Portillo’s “Baja California: A Geography of Hope” in “Misiones Jesuitas”, in Artes de Mexico, No. 65 (Mexico City: Artes de México y del Mundo, 2003), pp 104-7.

18^ Menacho, op. cit., pp 87-91. Although he claims otherwise, surprisingly little has been written on Schmid. The most recent biography is Werner Hoffman’s Vida y obra del P. Martín Schmid S.J., misionero suizo entre los chiquitanos, músico, artesano, arquitecto y escultor (Buenos Aires: FECIC, 1981). See also Gumucio, op. cit., pp 69-79.

19^ See Roberto Tomichá, La Primera Evangelización en las Reducciones de Chiquitos: Protagonistas y Metodología Misional (Cochabamba: Editorial Verbo Divino, 2002), p 89.

20^ Tonelli, op. cit., pp 97-106.

21^ Querezaju, ed., op. cit., pp 290-95. Tonelli claims a figure of 23,988 (according to the “Catálogo de Población de las Misiones de Chiquitos del Año 1767,” a primary-source manuscript in the Bolivian National Archive in Sucre). The discrepancy of exactly 200 may be due to a typographical error. See also Robert H. Jackson, “Demographic Patterns on the Chiquitos Missions of Eastern Bolivia, 1691-1767” in Bolivian Studies Journal, Vol. 12 (Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, 2005).

22^ This figure is given by some sources as the estimated population of the Chiquitos missions at the moment of the Extrañamiento, based on a comment by Fr Julián Knogler (the founder of the reducción of Santa Ana de Velasco) in a manuscript entitled “Relato sobre el país y la nación de los Chiquitos en las Indias Occidentales o América del Sur y en la misiones en su territorio”, that there were at that time some 22,000 baptised inhabitants and another 15,000 “near the point of conversion”. For this, see Werner Hoffman, Las misiones jesuíticas entre los chiquitanos (Buenos Aires: Fundación para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura, 1979), p 172.

23^ See Placido Molina, Historia de la Gobernación de e Intendencia de Santa Cruz de la Sierra (Sucre: Impresora Urania, 1936), p 185. See also Ernesto Maeder, “Las misiones de Chiquitos: Su evolución demográfica en las etapas jesuíticas y pos-jesuíticas (1710-1767 y 1768-1830)” in Marcelo Arduz Ruiz and Enrique Normando Cruz, eds., Iglesia, misiones y religiosidad colonial (Jujuy: Centro de Estudios Indígenas y Coloniales, 2001), pp 11-36.

24^ Menacho, op. cit, pp 126-7.

25^ See Oscar Tonelli, Santa Ana: La Cenicienta Chiquitania, pp 51-68. See also Gabriel René Moreno, Catálogo del Archivo de Mojos y Chiquitania (con Notas de Hernando Sanabria Fernández), 2nd ed. (La Paz: Editorial Juventud, 1974). However, see also Querezaju, op. cit., p 351. The architect Eckart Kühne, the greatest living authority on the Jesuit templos of Chiquitos, supports a probable construction date between 1770 and 1780.

26^ Rojas (and his family) is the only known exception to the otherwise-rigourously enforced law that no European other than the Jesuit missionaries was allowed to live in the reducciones. Rojas, an artist and citizen of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, lived at least between 1752 and 1769 with his family in Chiquitos. See Eckart Kühne, Evolución y percepción de las iglesias misionales del Oriente Boliviano (Zürich: Federal Technical University ETH, 2004); see also his “Borrador para una Guía de las Iglesias de Chiquitos” (unpublished manuscript).

27^ See Enrique Finot, Historia de la Conquista del Oriente Boliviano, 2^nd ed. (La Paz: Editorial Juventud, 1978), p 363.

28^ Tonelli, La Cenicienta Chiquitania, p 101.

29^ See Nino Gandarilla Guardia, Desenredando la Independencia de Santa Cruz y sus Provincias (Santa Cruz de la Sierra: Centro de Estudios Nacionales, 2008), pp 14-22.

30^ Ibid., pp 57-9. See also Tonelli, Reseña histórica social y económica de la Chiquitania, pp 133-7.

31^ See Virgilio Chini Ludueña, Warnes en Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz de la Sierra: Impresora Santa Cruz de la Sierra, 1944), p 159.

32^ Tonelli, op. cit., p 125.

33^ See Guardia, op. cit., pp 99-102, for a copy of the proclamation.

34^ Ibid., pp 167-78.

35^ Kühne, “Borrador para una Guía de las Iglesias de Chiquitos”, pp 3-7. Kühne’s comments are extremely interesting, as they posit the existence of cruceño settlers living in the former Jesuit mission towns and maintaining traditions that had been established long before the settlers’ arrival after 1767. What is impossible to discern (in most cases) is the extent to which these traditions might have been altered by the colonists.

36^ No biography of Ramos is known to exist. Tonelli’s works provide some background information (as well as on the Bolivian-Brazilian diplomatic crisis over the region). Ron L. Seckinger’s “The Chiquitos Affair: An Aborted Crisis in Brazilian-Bolivian Relations” in Luso-Brazilian Review, Vol. 11, No. 1 Summer, 1974 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press) pp 19-40, provides an excellent account of the crisis.

37^ References to Ramos’ exploits are recorded by D’ Orbigny in Voyage dans l’Amerique Meridionale (le Brasil, la Republique Orientale de l’Uruguay, la Republique Argentine, la Patagonie, la Republique du Chili, la Republique de Bolivia, la Republique du Perou), execute pendant les annees 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829, 1830, 1831, 1832 et 1833 (Paris: Chez Pitois-Levrault et Cie., 1835–1847), for which, see Alcides D’ Orbigny, Viaje por tierra cruceñas (Santa Cruz de la Sierra: UPSA, 1999), p 145.

38^ Apart from Seckinger’s work, there are only three known published accounts of the Brazilian annexation of Chiquitos. None are complete or free from speculation. The best is found in chapter five of Tonelli’s Reseña histórica social y económica de la Chiquitania (“Guerra de la Independencia e Invasión Brasileña”, pp 125-63). Ovando Sanz and Jorge Alejandro’s La Invasión Brasileña a Bolivia en 1825 (La Paz: Ediciones Isla, 1977) offers a more detailed assessment. Sixto Montero Hoyos’ “La Ocupación Brasileña en Chiquitos” (Santa Cruz de la Sierra: Periódico Adelante, No. 36, 01 August 1958) is a newspaper article on the topic.

39^ See http://www.chiqutania.com/missions_history.html for a condensed narrative of these events.

40^ Tonelli, op. cit., p 179.

41^ D’Orbigny’s Voyage dans l’Amerique Meridionale (le Brasil, la Republique Orientale de l’Uruguay, la Republique Argentine, la Patagonie, la Republique du Chili, la Republique de Bolivia, la Republique du Perou), execute pendant les annees 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829, 1830, 1831, 1832 et 1833 (in particular chapter 32 of book 4, “Generalidades geográficas, históricas y estadístas sobre la provencia de Chiquitos – de las mejoras industrales y comerciales que se podrían introducer allí”), has become a classic travelogue and de rigeur primary source for scholars. Recent scholarship has shown it is not entirely free from error. The 1945 edition published by Editorial Futuro in Buenos Aires is the latest complete version of this work. The 1990 edition published by the Vicario Apostólico de Chiquitos (now Ñuflo de Chávez) is the latest version to reproduce chapter 32 of book 4.

42^ Finot, op. cit., pp 364-6.

43^ Jackson, op. cit., p 234; Querejazu, op. cit., p 349. See also Geoffrey A P Groesbeck, “A Brief History of the Jesuit Missions of Chiquitos” in Bolivian Studies Journal, Vol. 14 (Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, 2007), p 118.

44^ Tallied from D’Orbigny, op. cit., sic passim. This figure is rounded down to “no se eleva más que 15,000 almas” in the 1990 edition published by the Vicario Apostólico de Chiquitos (p 31).

45^ See Groesbeck, op. cit., p 119.

46^ See Alcides Parejas Moreno, Chiquitos: A Look at its History (Santa Cruz: Fondo Editorial APAC, 2004), p 59.

47^ See Querejazu, ed., op. cit., book II, chapters 7 and 8: “El Período Postjesuítico” (pp 373-6) and “Moxos y Chiquitos en el Siglo XIX” (pp 377-83), as well as book III, chapter 1: “La Chiquitania en la Época Republicana” (pp 387-93)

48^ De Castelnau, op. cit., in Gumucio, op. cit., p 95.

49^ Tonelli, op. cit., p. 191.

50^ See Cecilia Kenning Mansilla, et al., La voz de los chiquitanos (Santa Cruz: Fondo Editorial Asociación Pro Arte y Cultura, 2006), p. 56.

51^ On the plight of the Chiquitano and other indigenous groups since their quasi-eviction from the former Chiquitos missions, one of the first to call attention to the matter was Fr Reinaldo Brumberger, OFM, in the pamphlet “El Alma Chiquitana: Historia del Pueblo Chiquitano” (Concepción: Vicariato Apostólico de Ñuflo de Chávez, 1991). Tonelli alludes to it within the context of the empatronamiento system in chapter 9 of Reseña histórica social y económica de la Chiquitania (see especially pp 261-5). See also Kenning, et al., op. cit., sic passim. Several works by Bernardo Fishermann also explore the topic.

52^ For an excellent treatment of this periodin the region, see Tonelli, op. cit., pp 224-35.

53^ See, for example, the Bolivian government’s “Resolution del 27 de marzo de 1882: Chiquitos y Velasco: impuesto que deben pagar los indijenas de estas provincia” in Kenning, et al., op. cit., p 60.

54^ Tonelli, op. cit., pp 234-5.

55^ The few substantive works that treat this period make no explicit reference to a transfer of control. Tonelli does not mention it anywhere. Roberto Tomichá Charupá’s excellent history of the Church in eastern Bolivia, La Iglesia en Santa Cruz: 400 Años de Historia 1605-2005 (Cochabamba: Editorial Verbo Divino, 2005) is silent on the matter, as is Menacho’s Por Tierras de Chiquitos. Ironically, Tomichá is a Franciscan and Menacho a Jesuit. There is one oblique reference in Brumberger’s “El Alma Chiquitana: Historia del Pueblo Chiquitano” (p 19), and another in Raúl E. Landivar’s booklet “Los Misioneros: Homenaje a la Conquista Espiritual de Chiquitos en su Tricentenario” (San Ignacio de Velasco: Imprenta Juan Pablo II, 1991) on p 32. In 1998, the parish of San Xavier published a brochure, “Welcome to the Parish Church of San Javier”, which contains a short historical sketch of the church and makes mention of the Franciscan presence. Unfortunately, the emphasis is on that Order’s subsequent restoration efforts, which pale in comparison to the work undertaken by Jesuits Hans Roth, José Herzog and others.

56^ On 3 November 1994, the Apostolic Vicariate of Chiquitos was elevated to the Diocese of San Ignacio de Velasco, with the Franciscan Carlos Stetter named as its head.

57^ Tonelli, La Cenicienta Chiquitania, pp 220-1.

58^ From the earliest days of the Chiquitos reducciones, non-natives (i.e., Spanish colonists) emphatically were prohibited from residing there. As early as the reign of Phillip II (1556-98), the Jesuits had extracted royal promises that no colonists would be permitted in areas in which the missionaries established reducciones. The 1727 royal prohibition against settlers living in these settlements (originally promulgated in 1713 but quickly withdrawn) is but one example of this policy. See Tonelli, op. cit., p 80.

59^ The templo in San Ignacio de Velasco, completed in 1761 and once the largest in the region, was torn down in 1948. A second church was constructed that year, which lasted until 1964. See Kühne, “Borrador para una Guía de las Iglesias de Chiquitos”, sic passim.

60^Brumberger, op. cit., sic passim. Now the subject of much anthropological, linguistic, and sociological interest, the Chiquitano and other native groups finally are being studied systematically. An excellent biography related to these studies is found in Kenning, et al., op. cit., pp 81-95. The Santa Cruz de la Sierra-based association Apoyo Para el Campesino-Indígena del Oriente Boliviano maintains a web site on developments affecting the indigenous communities throughout eastern Bolivia (http://www.apcob.org.bo). See also Mancomunidad de Municipios Chiquitanos “Analisis de Equidad Social en el Territorio de la Mancomunidad de Municipios Chiquitanos” (Santa Cruz de la Sierra: Editorial Empresa El País, 2002), pp 17-9ff. See also the web page http://www.chiquitania.com/missions_history.htm for further background and demographic information on communidades of the Chiquitania. The best known of these settlements is San Antonio de Lomerio.

61^ Roth never renounced his Jesuit vows in toto, but refused his superiors’ orders to return to Europe, although he agreed to remain a Jesuit brother (as opposed to priest) until his marriage in 1972. After arriving in Bolivia, he spent the rest of his life in that country. He son Christian carries on his work as an architect in Santa Cruz de la Sierra.

62^ Roth’s output and legacy is of incalculable importance, but of the man himself little has been written. Somewhat given to self-effacement, perhaps the most appropriate (and poignant) accolade to his genius is a small wooden plaque on the outside wall of the templo in Santa Ana de Velasco that reads: “In memory of Hans Roth (1934-1999), theologian and architect. Restorer of the Jesuit churches, defender of Chiquitania culture, creator of a new regional architecture, and driving force behind the music of the missions. He taught us to dream and made that dream a reality.”

63^ See Eckart Kühne, “Entre la Tradición Regional y el Estilo Moderno: Dos Obras de Hans Roth en Bolivia” (unpub. manuscript, 2000), pp 10-28. See also http://www.chiquitania.com/cruceno_chochis.html for an overview of the singular Sanctuario Mariano de la Torre and the town of El Chochís in general.

64^ See Eckart Kühne, “The Construction and Restoration of the 18th Century Missionary Churches in Eastern Bolivia” (unpub. manuscript forming part of doctoral thesis, 2002), p 2.

65^ See Patrick J. McDonnell, “How they go for Baroque in Bolivia” in the Los Angeles Times, 06 May 2006, p E-1.

66^ Kühne, op. cit., p 2.

Written by Geoffrey A P Groesbeck

Introduction

It is a simple fact that no comprehensive history of the Jesuit missions of Chiquitos¹ exists in English.² There are numerous accounts in Spanish, most of which rely primarily upon two secondary sources dating from the nineteenth century: D’Orbigny’s recollections of his travels in the region between 1831 and 1833³, and René-Moreno’s numerous writings, compiled in 1888 as Catálogo del Archivo de Mojos y Chiquitos.⁴ Mid- to late-twentieth century assessments by Molina, Parejas, and others were gathered together to form the massive Las Misiones Jesuíticas de Chiquitos⁵, often considered by dint of its scope as the most exhaustive treatment. These works deserve credit for shedding light on this often misunderstood and much mythologised era. However, increased accessibility of primary resources, subsequent scholarship, and especially the insistence of later historians such as García, Menacho, Tomichá, and Tonelli (the first two Jesuits themselves) upon using primary sources whenever possible⁶, have greatly expanded our knowledge and understanding of these missions during the Jesuit era.⁷

There is heightened interest in the former Jesuit missions of Chiquitos for several reasons. Chief amongst these are the unique musical and architectural legacies of the region’s communities, forged by several decades of cultural synthesis between Jesuit and indigenous peoples living side-by-side in the missionary-founded communities known as reducciones⁸. Two of these artistic heritages are well recognised today, one in the popular biennial musical festival “Misiones de Chiquitos”⁹, the other in the inscription of six of these settlements as World Heritage Sites by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1990.¹⁰

The Jesuit missions of Chiquitos also hold promising research in more nascent fields of scholarly activity, including acculturation and adaptation studies, Jesuit history along with the Jesuits’ modus operandi, missiology, and multicultural studies. Finally, sporadic efforts of the Bolivian government and several cultural organisations spearheaded by the Santa Cruz de la Sierra¹¹-based Asociación Pro Arte y Cultura (APAC) also have heightened interest in and awareness of the region and its unique patrimony.

Challenges to Historical Research

However, two problems immediately present themselves to anyone interested in accessing information on this period or utilising it as a foundation for research. In spite of the genuine singularity and undoubted richness of the cultural patrimony of the Chiquitania, not only is there a paucity of reliable information (much more so in in English), what does exist in any language often is not anchored in primary sources and is riddled with errors. These mistakes are largely the product of later writers who cited earlier works without verifying their accuracy, and injudiciously extrapolated conclusions from them. The warning is clear: Scholars seeking to glean accurate information or buttress their own theories must tread carefully when citing previous research on the Jesuit missions of Chiquitos.

Examples abound. One, thanks primarily to the carrying-forward of erroneous assumptions made by earlier researchers who either could not or did not care to verify their sources, the generalperception of the Chiquitos mission settlements today, even within the scholarly community, is that there were anywhere from six to ten communities in all. Two, there is a parallel belief that they remain as intact continuations – rather than restored representations – of their collective Jesuit past. Neither assumption is correct.

In fact, there were no less than thirteen settlements, twelve of which were reducciones formally established throughout the Chiquitania between 1691 and 1767. Of these, six (San Xavier, San Rafael de Velasco, San José de Chiquitos, Concepción, San Miguel de Velasco, and Santa Ana de Velasco)¹² have been designated World Heritage Sites by UNESCO. This accounts for why several modern sources’ accounts cite only six reducciones. A seventh, San Ignacio de Velasco, although not a World Heritage Site (its mission complex is a reconstruction, not a restoration, and therefore did not satisfy UNESCO’s inclusion criteria) is nonetheless the largest settlement in the Chiquitania and therefore reasonably well known. Including it makes the tally seven. The two most remote reducciones, Santiago de Chiquitos and Santo Corazón, are occasionally included,although more often overlooked. A few historians also include the abandoned San Juan Bautista, bringing the total to ten if all of the above settlements are included. Yet there are three others (San Ignacio de Boococas, San Ignacio de Zamucos, and Nuestra Señora del Buen Consejo) that are rarely mentioned. Nonetheless, they were reducciones or nearly so in their own right, and played important roles in the shaping of the history ofthe Chiquitania and beyond.

The most egregious error is one promoted by the Bolivian government and some tourism agencies, that these towns today are lineal descendants in every way to their missionary antecedents. Yet the vast majority of people living in them today are not descendants of the indigenous peoples who lived on the reducciones. They are, for the most part, descendants of former farmers, merchants and soldiers who migrated to the Chiquitos missions after secularisation began. The local ethnic groups either returned to the forest after the Jesuits’ expulsion in 1767 or were driven from their homes by arriving settlers from the city and environs of Santa Cruz de la Sierra. By 1851, the final vestiges of the reducción system had vanished throughout the Chiquitania¹³, and with them the missions’ former inhabitants. Most of the native ethnic groups apart from those who married into settler families reside today, greatly marginalised, in semi-autonomous hamlets known as comunidades.¹⁴

One can take this misunderstanding further when considering the cultural legacy of the Chiquitos missions. The mistaken assumption of unbroken continuity is nowhere more evident than in the efforts made to portray their churches (templos) as nothing less than the same buildings erected centuries ago. In fact, all of the churches in these towns have been heavily restored, and only parts of six original structures remain. Magnificent as they undoubtedly are, only one – that of Santa Ana de Velasco – can be termed original in any meaningful sense.

Furthermore, much of the art and furnishings of the templos are of a much later period.¹⁵ The buildings were handed over to the secular clergy of the Diocese of Santa Cruz de la Sierra in 1767, and in 1931 to Franciscan missionaries. Both groups made additions and subtractions, leaving little of the original Jesuit buildings and appurtenances. Under the restoration efforts led by the late Hans Roth between 1972-99, which were herculean and meticulous, further changes were made. While Roth’s work strove valiantly to establish aesthetic and architectural fidelity to the Jesuit originals, the result in many cases is interpretative: We are left with not a true Jesuit mission church, but an educated guess.¹⁶

Other examples can be cited. Regarding the well-documented correspondence between the Jesuits themselves, almost no research has been dedicated to the interaction between the Jesuits in the Chiquitos missions and their counterparts in Moxos and Guarayos.

This article seeks to bridge this information gap and dispel some of the more prevalent misunderstandings by providing an accurate historical overview of the Jesuit missions of Chiquitos, drawn from primary sources (primarily the writings of the Jesuits and their contemporaries during this period). It begins in the century before Jesuit expansion into the Chiquitania, covers the 75-year period (1691-1767) between the founding of the first mission and the enforcement of the Extrañamiento – the royal decree expelling the Jesuits from the Chiquitania and all Spanish possessions in the New World, issued by the Spanish king Carlos III.

The First Jesuits in Bolivia

The first Jesuit missionaries arrived in what is now Bolivia (then known as Upper Peru) in 1572, having moved eastward from the Viceroyalty of Peru, where they had been established as a province since 1568. They were preceded by other orders, including the Augustinians, Dominicans, Franciscans, and Mercedarians. The Jesuits had petitioned the Spanish Crown for permission to enter its holdings in the New World for three decades before it was granted in 1566 by Phillip II (the Portuguese king John III had given them leave to enter Brazil in 1549). For the first century or so, the Jesuits invariably accompanied the Spanish military and were residents of its scattered garrisons. They were not authorised to establish frontier settlements without approval of the civil authorities.

These early missionaries were almost exclusively from Spain. They attended to the spiritual needs of the colonists and proselytised indigenous peoples in the arid altiplano, around Lake Titicaca and in the cities of La Paz, Potosí, and La Plata (now Sucre). They also established chapter houses, churches, and schools, the earliest one in La Paz in 1572.

The Doctrina of Juli

The Jesuits’ most important foundation was the doctrina¹⁷ of Juli¹⁸, established by the Dominicans in 1558 on the shores of Lake Titicaca. The settlement’s administrative and organisational structure under the Jesuits became the model for the Guaraní reducciones in Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil, and later, those of Moxos and Chiquitos in Bolivia.

The Jesuits were given spiritual control (and for the most part, temporal) over Juli in 1577, much against the wishes of the Dominicans but under express order of the viceroy, Francisco de Toledo. Juli as a town was not a new settlement. It had been established Aymara village long before the Spanish arrived. As a doctrina, however, Juli had been only recently evangelised. Upon assuming control, the Jesuits did not attempt to modify the theological content of their predecessors, only the way it was manifested in a social context on a daily basis. The results were impressive: Within a few years, Juli boasted some 15,000 inhabitants and four churches.

The success of the reducciones of the Chiquitania some 150 years later had everything to do with the Jesuits’ insistence, rigourously maintained since the initial establishment at Juli, that these communities must be run not only as centres of spiritual welfare, but social welfare as well. Additionally, the doctrina of Juli provided the testing-ground for what later would become three key elements of Jesuit success in their missions: communal self-reliance and self-sufficiency; cooperation with – rather than coercion of – native inhabitants; and as complete autonomy as possible from colonial authorities.

Arrival in Santa Cruz de la Sierra

On 15 May 1585, the first three Jesuits, Fr Diego de Samaniego (the provincial superior), Fr Diego de Martínez, and Br Juan Sánchez, reached the remote eastern outpost of Santa Cruz de la Sierra (at that time located near present-day San José de Chiquitos)¹⁹, where they were welcomed by the governor, Lorenzo Suárez de Figueroa. The following year, Martínez began sporadic evangelisation of the nearby Itatine tribe, marking the first true Jesuit incursion into Chiquitos. Over the next several decades, other tribes, most of them linguistically part of the Tupi Guaraní or Chiquitano groups, gradually would be converted; only the Chiriguano remained consistently hostile to evangelisation.

The first chapter house in tiny Santa Cruz de la Sierra was set up in 1592. Although the Jesuits always retained at least two or three (and on occasion as many as ten) of their order in the department of Santa Cruz, most of their evangelising efforts were carried out from their base in La Plata (present-day Sucre) to the southwest. Santa Cruz de la Sierra at the time was no more than a poor frontier settlement of some two hundred souls, and suffered repeated setbacks from disease, drought, and lack of resources.

The Jesuits staffed two other small towns in the region, both long since abandoned but at the time strategically important: San Lorenzo de la Barranca and San Francisco de Alfaro. The former briefly served as the official seat of Jesuit activity in the Chiquitania in 1699 before reverting to Santa Cruz de la Sierra. San Francisco de Alfaro, founded in 1604 a short distance from the frontier town of Cotoca, saw most of its inhabitants relocate there within a decade, and had vanished completely by 1617.²⁰

Successes on the Doorstep of the Chiquitania and Beyond

At the same time that they were making incursions into the Chiquitania, the Jesuits penetrated into Bolivia’s northern reaches, especially in Mojos (now Moxos), most of which is now a part of neighbouring Beni Department (with the exception of Guarayos Province, which remains in Santa Cruz Department).²¹ The first incursions took place in 1596, although it was not until 1682 that the Jesuits were definitively established with the founding of the reducción of Nuestra Señora de Loreto. Their subsequent growth in Moxos was rapid, and within a few decades, the Jesuits had established 17 reducciones in the area.²²

It would be a mistake to claim that the Jesuits met with success everywhere (their efforts were not as fruitful in India and Japan), but they made many converts throughout much of South America (and at least 100,000 in Paraguay alone according to almost all contemporary sources). Argentina, Brazil, and especially Paraguay soon had several reducciones established along the lines of Juli, and incursions into Chile, Colombia, and Ecuador also flourished. However, the carefully honed Jesuit approach, with its desire for an autonomous theocratic existence, did not sit well with colonial authorities and aroused jealously amongst other religious orders. But geography played a large part in ensuring the success of many of the Jesuit missions in South America: With few exceptions, Jesuit reducciones were so physically distant from any measure of colonial control that the presence of a civil authority interfering with their work often was non-existent.

The Jesuits Enter the Chiquitania

By the late seventeenth century, the Jesuits had been in Santa Cruz de la Sierra for a century, although local evangelising efforts were few and far between. When missionaries did arrive, they usually came not from Lima but rather from the much closer Archdiocese of La Plata. None were to be had from the sparsely populated and abysmally poor Diocese of Santa Cruz de la Sierra itself, erected in 1605²³ with Bishop Antonio Calderón de León, former a bishop in Panamá and later Puerto Rico, at its head; its first seminary was not erected until much later.

After 1690, however, things changed rapidly. In that year, a Jesuit college was established in Tarija (now a city in southern Bolivia, but then the northernmost outpost of the Jesuits’ sphere of influence in Paraguay) by Fr José de Arce, newly arrived from the missions of Paraguay. He was chosen by his Jesuit superiors in Europe to act as a catalyst for the order’s expansion throughout the Archdiocese of La Plata and beyond, a mission he achieved with great success, although at the cost of his life. Whilst Tarija, as with Santa Cruz, originally was a part of the Jesuit province of Peru, it was largely independent from distant Lima, and in 1607 control was transferred to the newly created Archdiocese of La Plata.

However, Tarija’s proximity to trade routes to Paraguay meant it was influenced more by happenings in Asunción than in La Plata. During much of this time, the Jesuits had been busy in Paraguay establishing a virtual theocracy over large parts of the region. The first Jesuit reducción in Paraguay – San Ignacio Guazú – was founded in 1610. In the same year, the nearby Argentine reducciones of San Ignacio Mini and Nuestra Señora de Loreto were founded. Twenty more followed quickly, with another nine in Brazil as well.

Also in 1690, the Tarija-based Arce was placed in charge of the evangelisation of the hostile Chiriguano, who occupied much of the vast Gran Chaco, an enormous area encompassing broad swathes of modern Bolivia, Paraguay, and Argentina. A less spiritual mandate attached as well: to find a route and establish reducciones between isolated Santa Cruz de la Sierra and the Guaraní missions of Paraguay, possibly through Chiriguano-held territories. Jesuit religious authorities in Lima initially claimed the responsibility as theirs, but busy with their efforts in Moxos and elsewhere, could only protest ineffectually against Arce’s leadership. The matter dragged on for 16 years until 1706, when the Jesuit provincial general ruled in favour of the Tarija mission, definitively ending the debate.

A Fortuitous Mistake

Arce, although based in Tarija and nominally answerable to authorities in La Plata, was the right man for the job. Interested as he was in establishing both a route and missions along the way that would link Santa Cruz to Paraguay, he never intended to enter the Chiquitania, rather the territory to the southeast, which geographically afforded more direct access to Paraguay. However, he and his companion, Fr Diego Centeno²⁴, setting out from Tarija, became lost near what is now the town of Charagua, and were befriended by a group of Chané. Nearly dead of thirst before their rescue, the priests remained with their benefactors for three days and vowed to repay their kindness.

At the time, the Chané’s leader (cacique) Tambacura, was imprisoned in Santa Cruz de la Sierra and had been condemned to death. His sister, a member of the group who met Arce and Centeno, pleaded his cause with the Jesuits, who agreed to travel first to that city before resuming their trek to Paraguay. Once arrived, the two Jesuits argued successfully to have Tambacura’s sentence overturned and secured his freedom. The timing was fortuitous again: Governor Agustín Arce (no relation to Fr José de Arce) had just asked the authorities in Peru for Jesuit missionaries to evangelise the nearby Chiquitano, a friendly tribe who already had sent several delegations to Santa Cruz de la Cruz to petition him directly.

Whilst there, Arce witnessed the forced march of some 300 Chiquitano, destined for the silver mines of Potosí. They had been captured and sold into slavery by Portuguese slave traders – the notoriously cruel and much-feared bandeirantes. The sight convinced Arce that his lot lay with the Chiquitano, not the Chiriguano. This conviction was to become the most important event in the history of the Chiquitania.

Leaving Santa Cruz de la Sierra in late 1690, Arce and Centeno set out again for Tarija²⁵, where Arce had no trouble convincing the new Jesuit Provincial Lauro Núñez of his change of heart. Núñez approved the venture and authorised six Jesuits to convert both the Chiquitano and the Chiriguano throughout an area roughly the size of Alaska. The original mandate to find aroute between Santa Cruz de la Sierra and Asunción remained in place. In 1691 Arce and Centeno set out once more for Santa Cruz de la Sierra, accompanied this time by Brother Antonio de Rivas.²⁶

San Xavier: The First Jesuit Reducción in Chiquitos

Governor Arce died soon after the decision was made to evangelise the Chiquitania, and there was little support for continuing the policy. The townspeople of Santa Cruz de la Sierra were convinced that the Chiquitano were too bellicose, and in the end gave the Jesuits only two young guides to accompany them.

Nonetheless, on the feast of St. Sylvester, 31 December 1691, Arce and Rivas at last founded the first Chiquitos reducción, San Francisco Xavier de los Piñocas (now San Javier, or occasionally San Xavier) for the Piñocas, a sub-group of the Chiquitano. This was the only reducción co-founded by a religious brother, as opposed to a priest. Although it was rebuilt on three occasions before settling into its present form in 1708, its first site was – and its current location is again – located approximately 215 kms (133 miles) northeast of Santa Cruz de la Sierra. What many accounts omit is that the two Jesuits were nearly dead of starvation and almost certainly lost when they were befriended by the Piñocas. They could not have travelled much further in any case and so the settlement arose where it did.

The Passing of Arce

Arce remained in San Xavier, in charge of evangelising the Chiquitano and Chiruguano as the padre superior de las misiones until 1703²⁷, when he returned to the Guaraní reducciones. In 1715 he again was charged with the long-postponed task of opening aroute between Chiquitos and Paraguay.²⁸

Arce and another Jesuit, Fr Bartholomew Blende, struck out from Asunción, hoping to follow the course of the Paraguay River and eventually reach the reducción of San Rafael. They succeeded, but opted to forge a new trail on their return to Asunción when their luck ran out. In September, Blende was killed by hostile Payaguá somewhere in the desolate Gran Chaco in Paraguay. In December of the same year, almost exactly 24 years to the day he co-founded the first Chiquitos reducción of San Xavier, Arce too meet his end at the hands of the Payaguá. Their bodies were never recovered, and it was not until 1718 that four surviving Guaraní guides arrived in San Rafael to recount what had happened.

Additional Chiquitos Reducciones

Over the next seven decades, twelve more settlements followed, with Santo Corazón de Jesús de Chiquitos (now simply Santo Corazón) generally accepted as the last, erected in 1760, seven years before the Jesuit Extrañamiento.

There likely always will be a measure of uncertainty regarding the true number of permanent Jesuit reducciones established. For example, the short-lived settlement of Nuestra Señora del Buen Consejo, founded near present-day Puerto Suárezjust three months before the Jesuits’ expulsion, is rarely included in lists of Chiquitos reducciones as its existence was ephemeral.²⁹

Other problematic missions include Concepción, San Ignacio de Boococas, San Ignacio de Zamucos, and especially San Juan Bautista, for reasons explained below. A listing of these and other Jesuit reducciones established inthe Chiquitania, their founders, and their initial and definitive founding dates follows, given by date of initial settlement.

Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitania

Settlement/Original Name Founder(s) Founded (Refounded)

San Xavier* José de Arce, Antonio de Rivas 1691 (1696, 1698. 1708)

San Francisco Xavier de los Piñocas

San Rafael de Velasco* Juan Bautista Zea, Francisco Hervás 1696 (1701, 1750)

San José de Chiquitos* Felipe Suárez, Dionisio Avila 1698

San José de los Borós

San Juan Bautista Juan Bautista Zea, 1699 (1705)

San Juan Bautista de los Borós Juan Patricio Fernández, Pedro Cerena

Taperas de San JuanJuan Bautista Sandra 1717 (1772, 1780)

Concepción* Francisco Caballero, Francisco Hervás 1699 (1707, 1722)

La Inmaculada Concepción

San Ignacio de Boococas³⁰ José Ignacio de la Mata 1707

San Miguel de Velasco* Felipe Suárez, Francisco Hervás 1721

San Miguel Arcángel

San Ignacio de Zamucos³¹ Juan Bautista Zea, Agustín Castañares 1719 (1723)

San Ignacio de Velasco Miguel Areijer, Diego Contreras 1748

San Ignacio de Loyola de Velasco

Santiago de Chiquitos Gaspar Troncoso, Gaspar Campos 1754 (1764)

Santiago Apóstol

Santa Ana de Velasco* Julián Nogler 1755

Santo Corazón Antonio Gaspar, José Chueca 1760 (1788)

Santo Corazón de Jesús de Chiquitos

[Nuestra Señora del Buen Consejo] José Sánchez Labrador 1767]

* Declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1990.

The First Stage: 1691-1723

Most historians group the establishment of the Jesuit missions of Chiquitos into two distinct periods, with an interval between and each period characterised by rapid growth. The first, starting in 1691 and ending in 1723, corresponded with the settlement of the initial eight missions; the second, beginning in 1748 and ending with the expulsion of the Jesuit Order from Latin America in 1767, encompassed the last five settlements, including one that technically was not a true mission.

Regarding the first seven reducciones, San Xavier has been touched upon above. San Rafael de Velasco³², San José de Chiquitos, and San Miguel de Velasco are straightforward enough to require no additional treatment beyond what is readily available elsewhere.³³ The remaining three – San Juan Bautista, Concepción (along with San Ignacio de Boococas), and San Ignacio de Zamucos – need further mention to clarify their status.

The first of these three, San Juan Bautista, originally founded in 1699, has the most tangled history and no longer exists; it was abandoned in 1712, perhaps due to a plague, and reincarnated a few leagues to the south as Taperas de San Juan in 1717. This later version of the first reducción likewise was relocated, first in 1772 and again in 1780. The following year a disastrous fire consumed most of the mission, leaving only a ruined stone tower and the charred remains of the main complex (complejo).³⁴ Its homeless inhabitants were relocated by the civil authorities to a new nearby location, which confusingly took the name of the original, long-vanished San Juan Bautista. This settlement lasted until 1811, when a second fire destroyed it. By the time the French explorer D’Orbingy arrived in 1831, this mission was in ruins too. Yet a third town, San Juan de Taperas, situated not far from the abandoned second reducción, sprung up between 1811 and 1830 – there are no records attesting to its founding – or possibly even before the demise of the earlier mission, as census records show that these towns likely existed contemporaneously. The second version of San Juan de Bautista (i.e., Taperas de San Juan) had a population of 1,433 in 1807 (the last census before the fire of 1811), whilst the newer San Juan de Taperas already had 879 inhabitants in 1830³⁵. Accordingly, San Juan de Taperas is not reckoned as a reincarnation of San Juan de Bautista.

Concepción presents an interesting case of scholarly confusion. Originally founded in 1699³⁶ (not in 1708, 1709, or 1722, as a many sources claim), the initial settlement lasted only a few years. A rare target of local hostility to the Jesuits’ presence in the Chiquitania, this first settlement was subjected to frequent attacks from marauding tribes and hastily dismantled. A second attempt in 1707 was successful, and in the following year Concepción incorporated the inhabitants of San Ignacio de Boococas, a small nearby reducción founded in 1707 by Fr José Ignacio de la Mata.³⁷ Concepción was formally re-established in 1709, and translated in 1722 to its current location.

San Ignacio de Zamucos was founded in a particularly remote area of the Chiquitania approaching the current border with Paraguay. It was first established in 1719 (lasting only a matter of months), more definitively in 1723, and dismantled in 1745, due to internecine fighting between two rival sub-groups living within the settlement. Three years later, the majority of its inhabitants moved north and the reducción of San Ignacio de Velasco came into existence; the remainder went west to San Juan de Bautista.³⁸ Today nothing at all remains of San Ignacio de Zamucos.

The Second Stage: 1748-1767

Between the founding of San Ignacio de Zamucos in 1723 and that of its eventual successor San Ignacio de Velasco in 1748, no new missions were established in the Chiquitania. With the settling of San Ignacio de Velasco, however, the second phase of Jesuit expansion began. The four reducciones and one staging ground established in the final nineteen years of the order’s presence in the region were more strategically placed, having as an important objective their placement along the route to the missions of Paraguay.

Of these five settlements, only the third and fifth require additional remarks beyond what are supplied by conventional sources.³⁹ Santa Ana is notable less from an historical, and more from a cultural aspect in that it has the only templo that retains most of its original Jesuit-era accoutrements, in this case much of the church itself and several furnishings. In fact, Santa Ana is from a preservationist standpoint the most authentic Jesuit reducción, although sporadic restoration work continues on the church. Notwithstanding that it was erected a few years after the departure of the Jesuits, it is a classic example of the Mestizo-Baroque architectural style popularised by the Jesuits.

The final attempt at setting up a reducción by the Jesuits in the Chiquitania was Nuestra Señora del Buen Consejo, founded in May of 1767. It survived only three months, owing to the expulsion of the Society of Jesus later that year. Of all thirteen confirmed settlements, we possess the least information on this one. That we have any information is something of a marvel, given that the Jesuits had no time to do anything but record its ephemeral existence before they were expelled.

Eckart Kühne, the greatest scholar of the Chiquitos missions alive today, put it this way:

“It seems to me quite evident that Buen Consejo was not established…, there were only a cross and a provisional chapel, and it was decided (but not yet executed) to build some provisional shelters and open some chacos for the people that would come to prepare the establishment of the village. And above all: there was no Jesuit missionary resident in Buen Consejo yet. And anyway, looking at the character of the culture of the Guaycurú or Mbaya [a sub-group of the Guaycurú] and at the geographic situation, it is not at all probable that this would have been a successful foundation, even if the Jesuits had not been expelled. In San Juan Nepomuceno, another foundation by Sánchez Labrador, with Guaná Indians, the cross was erected in 1762 yet until 1767 the mission was still not established.”⁴⁰

The Question of Allegiance

Politically, these reducciones owed allegiance to the Spanish Crown⁴¹ through the Audiencia of Charcas with its seat at La Plata, itself part of the much larger Viceroyalty of Peru. But the on-the-ground reality, as noted above, was that the reducciones were essentially autonomous settlements, with little or no interaction with civil authorities from near or far.

From a religious standpoint, the Diocese of Santa Cruz de la Sierra theoretically was in control of the Chiquitos missions. Yet that institution, until it became an archdiocese itself in 1975, ultimately was subject to oversight, first from the Archdiocese of La Plata (which, although maintained by secular clergy, was dominated by and had a strong affinity towards the Jesuit Province of Paraguay) and made no attempt to influence or interfere with the Jesuit apparatus.

The Autonomy of the Chiquitos Missions

Thanks to their remoteness, the Chiquitos missions truly were all but completely autonomous and entirely self-sufficient. They exported their surplus goods throughout all of Upper Peru and beyond, earning the envy of Spanish and Portuguese colonists elsewhere in South America, especially the slave traders and large landholders who coveted the fertile Chiquitania territories for their encomiendas (settlements worked by enslaved native Amerindians) and estancias (cattle ranches).

The Chiquitos towns were founded intentionally as Catholic reducciones – autonomous, self-sufficient communities intended to range in size from 1,000 to 4,000 inhabitants. Each community had two priests at its head, assisted by a council of eight native leaders (cabildo) who met on a daily basis to monitor the progress, spiritual and otherwise, of the inhabitants. Usually two priests were assigned to a reducción. One was in charge of care of souls, catechetical instruction, and liturgy. The other was in charge of corporal matters: communal goods, land, workshops, and the like. Both had to make detailed, regular reports and in theory were subject to annual visits by Jesuit leadership in the form of a visitador appointed by the Provincial General in Paraguay.

It is important to note that these settlements were not intended as military or trading posts (although they very occasionally acted as both). As the Jesuit sources make abundantly clear, their primary purpose always was spiritual. Only the natives and the missionaries were legal inhabitants. Colonists were not allowed to live in these settlements, and in fact could not even remain in them for more than a few days’ time. The sole exception to this law seems to have been the architect Antonio Rojas, who possibly constructed two Chiquitos churches.⁴²

The indigenous inhabitants were members of one of the region’s three largest ethno-linguistic groups: the Chiquitano, Guarayo, or Ayoreo. (A few Chiriguano and Guaraní were present in some reducciones as well.) At the time of the Jesuits’ expulsion in 1767, there were at least 24,188 inhabitants⁴³ throughout the eleven settlements then existing in the Chiquitania⁴⁴, and more than 30,000⁴⁵ if the Moxos reducciones under Jesuit guidance are included.⁴⁶ As non-baptised residents were not always included in these tallies, it is possible the actual number throughout the region may have been as high as 37,000.⁴⁷

Political Considerations and the Expulsion of the Jesuits

The Chiquitos settlements eventually became caught up in a political battle between Spain and Portugal, the latter of whose slave traders in nearby Brazil – the hated mamelucos – wished to expand westward, whilst the Santa Cruz-based encomiendas and estancias coveted the fertile lands to the east. It did not helpthat their thriving economies and well-ordered way of life had earned the reducciones a great deal of jealousy on the part of the civil authorities. And as the settlements were virtually semi-independent states with private militias, both powers were suspicious of the missions’ undefined political status and sought to exploit it.

It came to a sudden and completely unforeseen (from the isolated standpoint of those in the Chiquitos) end on 27 February 1767, when the king of Spain, Carlos III, ordered the expulsion – referred to in Spanish sources as the extrañamiento – of all Jesuits from his realms (those in Brazil had been expelled by the Portuguese in 1759), including the scarcely two dozen missionaries who watched over the enormous Chiquitania territory.⁴⁸ By September, all but one of them had been removed and many of the inhabitants of the reducciones already had begun to abandon them. Several Jesuits – most of whom were aged – died as a result of hardships endured in the long journey to Lima and then back to Europe as a consequence of the expulsion. The last Jesuit to leave the area was Fr Narciso Patzi, on 10 May 1768, his departure delayed due to a grave illness.⁴⁹

After the Extrañamiento

After the expulsion, the reducciones steadily spiralled into a state of near-terminal decline. In 1776, the government of the entire region was militarised and the Chiquitania administered from the newly created, far-away Viceroyalty of Río de la Plata (to which the Audencia of Charcas now belonged). In ecclesiastical terms, all the reducciones had been secularised immediately after the Jesuits’ departure by Bishop Herboso y Figueroa⁵⁰, and the Diocese of Santa Cruz de la Sierra took over spiritual control (although in 1840 Franciscan missionaries were appointed to the Guarayos and Moxos missions). For more than thirteen decades, they lay in a state of economic and social torpor until the arrival of the Swiss architect and former Jesuit, the late Hans Roth, whose nearly three decades of spearheading restoration efforts finally raised them from obscurity.

The post-expulsion period in the Chiquitania is beyond the scope of this paper. Although the departure of the Jesuits is a matter well-documented, and much has been recorded of the period preceding their banishment, considerable research remains to be done on the history of the Jesuit missions of Chiquitos immediately following the Extrañamiento. This is especially so in the case of the chaotic period immediately following Bolivia’s independence.

The swift demise of these settlements raises troubling questions for those exploring both colonial and post-colonial history. How could such unparalleled – and acknowledged – success so quickly turn to decay and obscurity? As key export areas, why was no support offered by the Spanish crown to maintain their economic prosperity after the Jesuits were expelled? Why, after being reconstituted by Pope Pius VII in 1814⁵¹, did the Jesuits not return to the Chiquitania?

To a large extent, the blame for these matters lay with the avaricious interests and political policies of Spain, to a lesser extent with Portuguese interests, and even the papacy itself, all of whom had conspired to obliterate the Jesuits. These powers achieved their political objectives, but the handiwork and legacy of the Society of Jesus in the Chiquitania and elsewhere endures. Of what has been lost, as the late Hans Roth, the principle restorer of the Chiquitos missions, wrote, “It was not the natives who destroyed the work…but rather the economic and political envy, the ignorance and barbarism of those already civilized and educated.”⁵²

On A Positive Note

Of the original Jesuit Chiquitos settlements, nine still survive. Of these, seven possess a unique, albeit hybrid, cultural and social infrastructure that in many ways has changed little since the days of the Jesuits. All remain active settlements, and some still function as missions, with vibrant religious customs and beliefs.

With a renewed scholarly interest in the area tempered by a careful, rigorous approach to the conservation and study of the Chiquitos missions and their primary sources, much of value of the unique cultural and historical patrimony of these places can be preserved and drawn upon to inform further research in myriad fields of scholarship.

Written by Geoffrey A P Groesbeck

NOTES

1^ The now-dated regional identifier “Chiquitos” corresponds roughly to most of the modern-day area known as the Chiquitania (la [Gran] Chiquitania), located within Bolivia’s Santa Cruz Department. The Jesuits operated in Chiquitos from their arrival in 1585 until their expulsion in 1767. Although Chiquitos itself was a loosely defined political entity under the Spanish Empire, the Chiquitania never received political status as a specific Bolivian geographical designation. The Chiquitania comprises six provinces within Santa Cruz Department: Guayaros; Ñuflo de Chávez; José Miguel Velasco; Ángel Sandoval; German Busch; and Chiquitos. The former Jesuit missions of Chiquitos are found in all but Guarayos province, which was considered a separate mission field (often referred to as Mojos or Moxos) by the Jesuits and their contemporaries.

2^ An English-language translation of Alcides Parejas’ Chiquitos: un paseo por su historia (Santa Cruz: APAC Fondo Editorial, 2004) exists, although this work is more a brief overview of the region than a history.

3^ First published as Voyage dans l’Amerique Meridionale (le Brasil, la Republique Orientale de l’Uruguay, la Republique Argentine, la Patagonie, la Republique du Chili, la Republique de Bolivia, la Republique du Perou), execute pendant les annees 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829, 1830, 1831, 1832 et 1833. Paris: Chez Pitois-Levrault et Cie., 1835–1847, 9 vols. The 1945 edition published by Editorial Futuro in Buenos Aires is the latest version of this work.

4^ Conceived originally as a catalogue of René-Moreno’s historical essays and papers, Catálogo del Archivo de Mojos y Chiquitos (Santiago: Imprenta Gutenberg, 1888) was published at the expense of the Boliviangovernment. Intended as a tribute to its author, it quickly became, along with D’Orbigny’s earlier work, a de rigeur source for historians. Recent scholarship has shown neither work to be free from error. Ofthe two, D’Orbigny’s writings are generally considered more historically reliable and less prone to speculation.

5^ Pedro Querejazu, ed., Las Misiones Jesuíticas de Chiquitos (La Paz: Fundación BHN, 1995).

6^ Of the primary sources that have been researched, the most useful is the monumental Historia general de la Compañía de Jesús en la Provincia del Perú: Crónica anómina de 1600 que trata del establecimiento y misiones de la Compañía de Jesús en los países de habla española en la América meridional, Vol. II, editedby Francisco Mateos (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1944). Of great importance is the unedited archive of correspondence from the Jesuits of Paraguay from the years 1690-1718. Collectively known as “Cartas a los Provinciales de la Provincia del Paraguay 1690-1718,” these manuscripts are housed in the Jesuit Archives of Argentina in Buenos Aires, which also contain the invaluable annual letters of the Paraguay Province of the Company of Jesus covering the years 1689-1762. Fr Julián Knogler’s “Inhalt einer Beschreibung der Missionen deren Chiquiten,” Archivum Historicum Societatis Jesu, 39/78 (Rome: Company of Jesus, 1970) is indispensable, as is his account “Relato sobre el país y la nación de los Chiquitos en las Indias Occidentales o América del Sud y en la misiones en su territorio”, for which see Werner Hoffman, Las misiones jesuíticas entre los chiquitanos (Buenos Aires: Fundación para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura, 1979). There are otherprimary sources as yet unexamined, the majority of which are archived in Cochabamba, Sucre, and Tarija (in Bolivia); Buenos Aires, Córdoba, and Tucumán (in Argentina), and in Asunción, Madrid, and Rome. Surprisingly few primary sources are found in the Archivo de la Catedral de Santa Cruz de la Sierra in that city.

7^ See José María García, “Los jesuitas en Santa Cruz de la Sierra hasta los inicios de las reducciones de Moxos y Chiquitos: Posibilidades y limitaciones de la tarea misional”, in Quinto Centenario (Madrid, Vol. 14, pp 73-92); Antonio Menacho, Fundación de las Reducciones Chiquitos (Santa Cruz: Verbo Divina, 1987) and Por Tierras de Chiquitos (San Xavier: Vicario Apostólico de Ñuflo de Chávez, 1991); Roberto Tomichá, La Primera Evangelización en las Reducciones de Chiquitos: Protagonistas y Metodología Misional (Cochabamba: Editorial Verbo Divino, 2002) and La Iglesia en Santa Cruz (Cochabamba: Editorial Verbo Divino, 2005); Oscar Tonelli, Reseña histórica social y económica de la Chiquitania (Santa Cruz: Editorial El Pais, 2004). Mariano Gumucio’s Las Misiones Jesuíticas de Moxos y Chiquitos: Una Utopía Cristiana en el Oriente Boliviano, 3rd ed. (La Paz: Lewylibros, 2003), which covers the Moxos missions as well as those of Chiquitos, merits inclusion in this group, as do the works of Guillermo Furlong, S.J.

8^The word reducción is often incorrectly translated as “mission”. It is better considered as a settlement for indigenous peoples established by European colonists, be they religious or secular, with the stated intent to proselytise and introduce specific religious, social, and cultural norms to the inhabitants through shared experiences and hierarchical instruction. In the case of the Jesuit missions of Chiquitos exceptions were made by colonial authorities permitting the founding of reducciones that were predominantly religious in nature.

9^ For information on these festivals sponsored by the Santa Cruz de la Sierra-based Asociación Pro Arte y Cultura, see http://www.festivalesapac.com.

10^ See “United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage: Report of the World Heritage Committee, Fourteenth Session, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 7-12 December 1990” (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/529/documents/%23ABevaluation).

11^ In this paper, a distinction is maintained between the political department (“Santa Cruz”) and the archdiocese and capital of that department (“Santa Cruz de la Sierra”).

12^ By date of founding. Int this article, wherever two or more reducciones are listed, they are given in chronological order unless otherwise noted.

13^ See Querejazu, op. cit., p. 387, 390.

14^ See Reinaldo Brumberger, OFM, “El Alma Chiquitania: Historia del Pueblo Chiquitano” (Concepción: Vicariato Apostólico de Ñuflo de Chávez, 1991).

15^ See Eckart Kühne, Evolución y percepción de las iglesias misionales del Oriente Boliviano (Zürich: Federal Technical University ETH, 2004); also his “Borrador para una Guía de las Iglesias de Chiquitos” (unpub.).

16^ See Querejazu, op. cit., pp. 473-8. A number of art historians specialising in mission art (e.g., Gauvin A. Bailey, Sabine MacCormack) have noted that the art of these missions is more polyglot than “Mestizo Baroque” (a term often used to identify Jesuit mission art of the Colonial Era in Latin America), especially after its restorations by Roth and others.

17^ There is debate regarding the differences between a doctrina and a reducción (as well as other terms such as encomienda, rancheríao). In this article, reducción is used invariably except in reference to Juli, as this word was employed by the Jesuits in describing the Chiquitos missions. See “Sources for the History of the Indigenous Peoples of North Mexico” by Irene Vasquez (https://www.academia.edu/5551010/Sources_for_the_History_of_the_Indigenous_Peoples_of_North_Mexico).

18^ There were three separate doctrinas in the vicinity of the town of Juli, often considered as one unit. See Menacho, Por Tierras de Chiquitos, p. 54-5.

19^ See Nino Gandarilla, ed., La Creación del Parque Nacional Histórico “Santa Cruz la Vieja” (Santa Cruz: Fundación Natura Viva, 2004).

20^ See Menacho, Por Tierras de Chiquitos, pp. 16-8, 24, 26.

21^ For treatments of the Jesuit presence in Moxos, see Gumucio, op. cit., sic passim and Querejazu, op. cit., pp 303-93.

22^ Some historians (e.g., Gumucio) give the number of reducciones established in Moxos as 26. These tallies erroneously include the Chiquitos reducciones.

23^ Its first parish (at that time still part of the Archdiocese of La Plata), El Sagrado, was erected on 22 June 1571. See Tomichá, La Iglesia en Santa Cruz, p 84.

24^ Arce originally set out from Tarija on 20 June 1689 with another Jesuit, Fr Miguel de Valdeolivos. Valdeolivos stopped in the settlement of Salinas and apparently then founded on his own the reducción of San Ignacio de Taraquea, located along the banks of the lower Pilcomayo River, northeast of Tarija. Arce returned to Tarija, met Centeno, and started out again, reaching San Ignacio de Taraquea on 7 September. The two Jesuits proceeded towards Chiriguano territory alone, with Valdeolivos remaining in Salinas. See Javier Bautista, S.J., “Los Jesuitas: los llamaron, los expulsaron,” Cuarto Intermedio, No. 20 (August 1991).

25^ Arce and Centeno founded a reducción, La Presentación del Guapay, no later than 2 February 1690 (when they concelebrated Mass there on the Feast of the Presentation of Mary, then known as Candlemas Day), near what is now the town of Cabezas, approximately 20 kilometres south of Santa Cruz de la Sierra. Whilst technically not located in Chiquitos, this was the first semi-permanent Jesuit reducción in the Bolivian Oriente. See Bautista, op. cit.

26^ Arce and Rivas stopped at the reducciones of San Ignacio de Tariquea and La Presentación on their return journey to Santa Cruz de la Sierra. At La Presentación, Centeno rejoined Arce and Rivas, leaving another Jesuit, Fr Juan Bautista Zea (who later founded or co-found three reducciones in the Chiquitania proper), in charge of the reducción. Both San Ignacio de Tariquea and La Presentación were short-lived, and were abandoned in 1727 when their inhabitants rebelled against the Jesuits. See Menacho, op. cit., p 67; also Gumucio, op. cit., p 120.

27^ See Guillermo Furlong, S.J., “De la Asunción a los Chiquitos por el Río Paraguay: Tentativa frustrada en 1703. ‘Breve relación’ inédita del P. José Francisco de Arce,” Archivum Historicum Societatis Jesu, VIII (Rome: Company of Jesus, 1938), pp 54-79.

28^ See Querejazu, op. cit., p 309.

29^ A rare exception is Tonelli’s Reseña histórica social y económica de la Chiquitania, the only modern work apart from Querejazu’s Las Misiones Jesuíticas de Chiquitos to make mention of this ephemeral would-be reducción. For an in-depth study of this staging ground, see Tonelli, “Nuestra Señora del Buen Consejo fue la Última Reducción fundada en las Misiones de Chiquitos”, Revista Extra, Año 12, No. 387 y 388 (Santa Cruz: 31 August and 07 September 1997).

30^ San Ignacio de Boococas was incorporated into the reducción of Concepción in 1707.

31^ San Ignacio de Zamucos was abandoned in 1745 and its inhabitants relocated to San Ignacio de Velasco in 1748.

32^ See Jaime Cabello, ed., Provincia Velasco (Santa Cruz: Centro para la Participación y el Desarrollo Humano Sostenible, 2005) for a brief historical treatment of the four Velasco missions of San Rafael, San Ignacio, San Miguel, and Santa Ana.

33^ While not entirely free from error, Querejazu has much useful information on all of these reducciones (including additional material on those of Velasco).

34^ See Querejazu, op. cit., p 349.

35^ See Jackson, op. cit., p 234.

36^ See Gumucio, op. cit., p 119 (but also see p 36); Querejazu, op. cit., p 333.

37^ Although several primary sources attest to the existence of San Ignacio de Boococas, only Querejazu and Tonelli make mention of it. See Querejazu, op. cit., p 274, and Tonelli, op. cit., p 71. It was one of only two Jesuit missions in Chiquitos founded by only one missionary.

38^ See Tomichá, La Primera Evangelización en las Reducciones de Chiquitos: Protagonistas y Metodología Misional, p 549.

39^ See Querejazu (especially pp 272-4, 333-5, and 347-52).

40^ Author’s private correspondence. See also Leandro Sequeiros, Jesuits on the Borders (Madrid: Bubok Editions, 2010).

41^ The Crown willingly granted the Jesuits a high degree of autonomy as the missions provided consistent royal income. The 1727 prohibition against colonists living in the reducciones (originally promulgated in 1713 but quickly withdrawn) is but one example of this policy. See Tonelli, op. cit., p 80.

42^ See Kühne, Evolución y percepción de las iglesias misionales del Oriente Boliviano, Appendix 1.

43^ See Querezaju, ed., op. cit., pp 290-95. Tonelli claims a figure of 23,988 (according to the “Catálogo de Población de las Misiones de Chiquitos del Año 1767,” a primary source manuscript in the Bolivian National Archive in Sucre). The discrepancy of exactly 200 may be due to a typographical error.

44^ See Robert H. Jackson, “Demographic Patterns on the Chiquitos Missions of Eastern Bolivia, 1691-1767” in Bolivian Studies Journal, Vol. 12 (Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, 2005).

45^ See Gumucio, op. cit., p 90.

46^ Other sources claim – without citing a source – that there were as many as 18,535 indigenous inhabitants for the Moxos missions at the time of the expulsion. See Querejazu, op. cit., p 336. If this figure is correct, the combined population of the missions under Jesuit guidance in Chiquitos and Moxos in 1767 would have been at least 42,500, and possibly as high as 57,500 if unbaptised inhabitants (see following footnote) were included.

47^ This figure was given as the estimated population of the Chiquitos missions at the moment of the Extrañamiento, based upon a comment by Fr Julián Knogler (the founder of the reducción of Santa Ana deVelasco) in a manuscript entitled “Relato sobre el país y la nación de los Chiquitos en las Indias Occidentales o América del Sud y en la misiones en su territorio”, that there were at that time some 22,000 baptised inhabitants and another 15,000 “near the point of conversion”. For this, see Werner Hoffman, Las misiones jesuíticas entre los chiquitanos (Buenos Aires: Fundación para la Educación, la Ciencia y laCultura, 1979), p 172.

48^ See Gumucio, op. cit., p 162-3, for a copy of the proclamation.

49^ See Tomichá, La Primera Evangelización en las Reducciones de Chiquitos: Protagonistas y Metodología Misional, p 89.

50^ Tonelli, op. cit., p. 92, sic passim

51^ See Thomas W. Worcester, S.J., “A Remnant and Rebirth: Pope Pius VII Brings the Jesuits Back” in Conversations on Jesuit Higher Education, Vol. 45, Article 4 (2014) at https://epublications.marquette.edu/conversations/vol45/iss1/4.

52^ See https://www.colonialvoyage.com/life-in-the-reducciones-bolivia-missions/#sdfootnote12sym.