Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Tantingco: Mexico was one of Pampanga's capitals
By Robby Tantingco
Peanut Gallery
SAN Jose Matulid is a sleepy village in Mexico town, located only a short distance from the SM and Robinson's malls, but a world away in terms of progress. Yet once upon a time, this village was probably the poblacion, or town center, of Mexico.
Church heritage experts believe that the chapel in San Jose Matulid is the oldest existing church in Pampanga, older than the churches of Lubao, Arayat and Bacolor - actually much more ancient towns whose first churches, however, had been destroyed and replaced with the present structures.
The river in front of this chapel is the Sapang Matulid, probably the original name of the whole area until the friars Christianized and renamed it as San Jose Matulid. This river flows straight as far as the eye could see (hence the name); once it reaches the next town, it adopts the next town's name and becomes San Fernando River. It proceeds to join the Guagua-Pasac River, which connects to the Pampanga River, which empties into Manila Bay. Thus, before siltation dried up the rivers, there was a direct route between Manila and Mexico, Pampanga.
According to Augustinian records, the town was founded in 1581 (or 10 years after the conquistadores first entered Manila Bay) and was originally named Nuevo Mexico (New Mexico). I am sure there was already a prehistoric community thriving in this area before 1581; the Spaniards merely "discovered" it.
Now, why did the Spaniards call the place New Mexico? This is where the speculations run wild. Some say it was named after the Central American nation because the Spaniards found natives in the Pampanga town that looked like Aztecs, who, many think, were the forerunners of the Macabebe Scouts, whose photos, taken at the time the Americans came in 1898, showed them in G-string and sporting waist-long hair (uncanny resemblance to Aztec Indians!).
Another theory: Mexico town was named after the chico fruit, an export from Mexico, Central America (again!).
But I think the two more plausible theories are: (1) It was named after a river bend (makasicu, or "elbowing") and (2) It was named after abundance of water (masicu, whose root word sicu is an ancient Kapampangan word for water).
Makasicu or Masicu was probably the prehistoric name of the town. When the Spaniards came and asked the inhabitants how they called their place, the Spaniards either misheard them, or misspelled it, or used the familiar term, Mexico that sounded closest to the native term, Masicu.
The original poblacion, as mentioned earlier, was most likely the present San Jose Matulid; but due to constant flooding from the Sapang Matulid, the town was transferred to higher ground, which is the present site of the church. I see logic in renaming the town near a straight river (matulid) as the town near a bent river (makasicu) - to show contrast between the two sites.
As we all know, Bacolor became the capital of the Philippines in 1762-1765 after the British Occupation forced the transfer of the capital from Manila. Bacolor had already been the capital of Pampanga years before that - in 1755, to be exact. Before 1755, there was no single capital town of Pampanga. Instead, according to the Spanish chronicler Fray Gaspar de San Agustin, Mexico town "es la corte de Pampanga," while Bacolor "es la capital" and Guagua "es igualmente." Thus, the provincial courts were located in Mexico, the other government agencies in Bacolor, and the rest in Guagua - three separate but adjacent towns -sharing the functions of government and equal in stature. Since there was no San Fernando town yet, Mexico and Bacolor and Guagua were next to each other, with a single straight river (Sapang Matulid) facilitating communication and transportation between and among the branches of government.
Eventually, the Spaniards centralized all government functions and Bacolor officially became Pampanga's capital in 1755, one year after the new town of San Fernando was carved out of the barrios along the Mexico-Bacolor boundary. Thus, San Fernando suddenly stood between Mexico and Bacolor, and that was how Mexico began to lose its prominence.
(August 29, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
