Colonial Latin American Review

ISSN: 1060-9164 (Print) 1466-1802 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccla20

Indigenous migrants negotiating belonging:

Peticiones de cambio de fuero in Cajamarca, Peru,
17th–18th centuries

Sarah Albiez-Wieck

To cite this article: Sarah Albiez-Wieck (2017) Indigenous migrants negotiating belonging:
Peticiones de cambio de fuero in Cajamarca, Peru, 17th–18th centuries, Colonial Latin American
Review, 26:4, 483-508, DOI: 10.1080/10609164.2017.1402233

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10609164.2017.1402233

Published online: 05 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 74

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ccla20
COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW, 2017
VOL. 26, NO. 4, 483–508
https://doi.org/10.1080/10609164.2017.1402233

Indigenous migrants negotiating belonging: Peticiones de

cambio de fuero in Cajamarca, Peru, 17th–18th centuries
Sarah Albiez-Wieck
Department for Iberian and Latin American History, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

Introduction: the entanglements of indigenous migration and the casta

system in Cajamarca
Indigenous migration was a numerically and socially important phenomenon in the
Viceroyalty of Peru. The figure of the indio forastero1 is well known by colonial histor-
ians, especially those studying the southern part of the Audiencia de Lima and the Audi-
encia de Charcas, and was also widespread in the Audiencia de Quito. There exist some
classical, but still highly relevant studies such as those for the south by Wightman
(1990), Sánchez-Albornoz (1978, 1983) and Saignes (1984, 1987), and for Quito by
Powers (1995, 2009); and also more recent ones like the work by Escobari de Quejarazu
(2005), Gil Montero (2013) and Gil Montero and Nielsen (2010), both for the southern
regions.
Not surprisingly, indios forasteros were also an integral component of the colonial
society in between these two regions, in the northern Andean colonial corregimiento
Cajamarca.2 Cajamarca, albeit famous for staging the encounter between Atahualpa
and Pizarro, has received much less scholarly attention than the southern Andes.
Much of the research is focused on the 16th century, like the numerous specific
studies by Espinoza Soriano (e.g. 1986a, 1986b, 2006), the more general work by Silva
Santiesteban, Ravines and Sarmiento Gutiérrez (Silva Santisteban, Espinoza Soriano,
and Ravines 1986; Sarmiento Gutiérrez and Ravines 2009), the articles accompanying
the edition of a 16th-century visita (Remy Simatovic 1992) and some additional articles,
such as those by Noack (2003) and Ramírez (2002). This is somewhat surprising as Caja-
marca, the capital of the corregimiento of the same name, had a special status during the
entire colonial period, being de jure a pueblo de indios but de facto a villa, as Argouse
(2016) has shown recently in her book on 17th-century Cajamarcan testaments. But
in all these studies, forasteros are at best peripheral figures and generally do not
appear at all.
The topic of indigenous migration, in Cajamarca as well as elsewhere in Spanish
America, was closely intertwined with the colonial conception of a hierarchical society,
often characterized as a casta system or society. Quite a few historians have discussed
whether these neatly differentiated castas were relevant in colonial daily life and if the
castas should be labelled as ethnic or racialized categories.3 By now, it is commonly
accepted that the casta classifications were to a certain degree flexible and context-
dependent and that a racialized criterion was only one among others. Religious, legal,

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of CLAR
484 S. ALBIEZ-WIECK

socioeconomic and fiscal criteria were important as well, although historians assess them a
varying importance. Only a few scholars fundamentally question the existence of ethnic
criteria (Noack 2011).
One central expression of the casta society was the tribute system. The rather static con-
ception of this system was challenged by the mostly internal migration of indigenous
people which is at the heart of this article.4 In the following, I will analyze the entangle-
ments, imbrications and mutual interferences of indigenous migration and fiscal cat-
egories and how they were implemented and negotiated. The relationship between
migration and the tribute system has not been made explicit enough, and it is crucial to
show that the seemingly static fiscal categories were negotiable, flexible and changed
over time.
To ground this general aim, I will ask some more concrete questions. What were
the prehispanic antecedents of migration in the region? What happened when colo-
nial migrants like the forasteros settled down, formed families, found friends and
interacted with the local colonial administration? Did they manage to gain access
to the local land? How were they integrated into the corporate structures typical
of Andean life before and after the Spanish conquest, and was this integration
tied to land tenure? How did they and their descendants negotiate their belonging,
especially with reference to other social groups, of indigenous, Spanish, African and
mixed descent?
I will answer these questions via the analysis of a little known type of source document,
the peticiones de cambio de fuero.5 In these petitions, individuals, families and groups
united by a shared fate struggle to change—or often just maintain— their fiscal category
and legal status which was associated with a number of privileges.6 The documents and
testimonials presented by them and their opponents show their rootedness in the local
corporate structure of the ayllus/pachacas and guarangas (cf. infra) and their—at least
in some cases—impressive networks and social capital. Besides, they demonstrate the con-
siderable diversity of colonial categories for migrants and the capacity of petitioners to
negotiate their place. Finally, they open up the question of whether it is even meaningful
to address all of them generally as migrants, as a considerable part of the people in ques-
tion did not migrate themselves but were only the descendants of actual migrants, mostly
in the second or third generation; and in the case of the Incas or mitimaes, the actual
migration lay much further in the past. For this reason, I prefer to use the terms
present in the sources. The article nevertheless also speaks about migrants, because on
the one hand, a history of migration is the common denominator in the several social
units referred to here, and the local population as well as the colonial administration
more generally accepted and furthered the classification based on this premise. On the
other hand, it connects to the terminology used by the descendants of present-day internal
migrants in Bolivia who denominate themselves migrants in the second and even third
generation (Ibáñez Cueto 2015, 212).
With this, the article contributes to the field of migration history, especially the agency
of migrants, as well as to the discussion about the casta and the tribute system, by offering
a perspective from an understudied region and a relatively unknown type of sources.
As Cajamarca does not lie in the focus of most studies on the Viceroyalty of Peru, the
article starts with a delineation of the specific conditions under which indigenous migrants
lived in this region and its capital as well as a sketch of the set of the relevant social
 COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW 485

categorizations and their peculiar entanglements. Thereafter, the sources in question are
presented and it is outlined how therein the negotiation of categories took place. This
part refers also to categories of people with mixed ancestry, and others with a more ambig-
uous meaning, as there existed some overlapping with but also differentiation from
migrant categories. To better understand the continuities and changes of migrant cat-
egories over time, the development of the initially prehispanic migrant categories
(mitma, yana) is traced separately from the more clearly Spanish ones (forastero, quin-
tero). As these categories were mostly hereditary and descent played a crucial role in
the petitions, this topic is treated extensively in the following part. The main body is
rounded off with a note on the integration of the migrants and their descendants into
the local society, the networks they developed and how they furthered the success of
the petitions, before summing up the main findings in the conclusion.

Categories and petitions in colonial Cajamarca

As has been already mentioned, the town of Cajamarca was considered legally a pueblo de
indios, which means that theoretically only indigenous people were allowed to live there.
However, the town had an important Spanish and mixed population, being de facto a villa,
a term also employed in most colonial documents. But during the entire colonial period,
the Spaniards did not obtain the authorization to create a Spanish cabildo, and Cajamarca
was only declared to be a ciudad in1809 (Argouse 2007, 406). However, after a long con-
frontation during which Spaniards, mestizos and mulattoes were intended to be expelled
from the town, the Spaniards obtained some legitimization of their presence through the
establishment of a parish of Spaniards, called Santa Catalina, in 1682, supplementing the
indigenous parish of San Antonio (Argouse 2016, 50, 72–73).7 Mestizos became institutio-
nalized as fuero only between 1642–1672 (Argouse 2007, 423–24).
This constellation made the ownership of land, and especially the sale of indigenous
land, a particularly delicate issue which theoretically should have been forbidden. But
already by the middle of the 17th century, Spaniards and people of mixed ancestry had
achieved legal access to indigenous land, notably by a composición de tierras and the
visita of Pedro de Meneses from 1644–1648, which legalized—often in a very irregular
way which was later criticized— the acquisition of land by Spaniards, which had also
been possible before (Argouse 2016, 80–89). In the town of Cajamarca, indigenous
people and Spaniards lived side by side and were not separated. The ownership by indi-
genous people of land (solares) and houses in the city, and in some cases also in the coun-
tryside, was individualized. However, all these individuals still belonged to an ayllu,
pachaca and/or guaranga, as they stated for example in their testaments, and might
have had access to additional land owing to this membership. The terminology for
these social units differed in the north from other territories of the former Tahuantinsuyo.
In the north, several pachacas together constituted a guaranga. Pachaca means 100 in
Quechua, and guaranga or huaranga, 1,000. However, in northern Peru, there is no
direct conformity with the decimal organization of the Inca. It is supposed that these
units constituted a complex social and political organization with origins prior to Inca
rule (Zuloaga Rada 2012, 44; Argouse 2004; Topic and Topic 2015, 116–17). 8 In the
Spanish corregimiento of Cajamarca, the organization into guarangas and pachacas
lasted, with some alterations, until the beginning of the Republican period, although the
486 S. ALBIEZ-WIECK

terms ayllu and parcialidad instead of pachaca became more widespread, implying an
equivalency in the term and concept of pachaca with the more widely known Andean
ayllu.
The belonging to all these social units was based on ancestry, i.e. it was hereditary.
Scholars on prehispanic and colonial Peru generally describe them as corporate kin
groups with commonly owned land, a common organization of public tasks and the
veneration of common ancestors (Topic and Topic 2015, 116–17; Guarisco 2011, 53;
Cahill 2013; 259, Glave 1996, 506–8). These units are reflected in the hierarchy of indigen-
ous authorities, which existed alongside and intertwined with the Spanish colonial ones
(Argouse 2008, 165, 172). The details of the structure of authority in the other provinces
of the corregimiento Cajamarca has been little investigated, but the division into pachacas
or ayllus and guarangas was quite similar there.

The structure of the petitions

These corporate structures were an important reference point in the peticiones de cambio
de fuero analyzed for this article. Twenty-five petitions of migrants and their descen-
dants have been scrutinized in detail, complemented by the more superficial knowledge
of several others. Besides that of the indio forastero, the petitions comprise other mig-
rant categories, like mitma, yanacona and Inca.9 Similar petitions by mulattoes and
mestizos—some of them already analyzed by Argouse (2007)—and of disabled, ill or
old individuals exist. They have a similar structure, and the common goal of the peti-
tioners was to be included in or excluded from a specific fiscal category or fuero. The
ones by migrants range in date from 1665 to 1799, with two-thirds (16) dating to the
17th century, and one-third (nine) to the 18th century.10 The starting point for the peti-
tion was often an allegedly incorrect registration in a new tribute list during a past revi-
sita.11 At the moment when the petitions took place, the migrants (or their descendants)
who presented them were residing in all three provinces of the corregimiento, in
Huambos, Cajamarca and Huamachuco (cf. Figure 1). The reported origin of the peti-
tioners or their ancestors, i.e. the starting point of their migration, lay mostly in the
central and northern Andes, i.e. they had migrated to Cajamarca mostly from the
neighboring corregimientos (cf. Figure 2).12
The petitions were issued mostly by individuals, but also collectively for several family
members, for an entire ayllu or similarly defined groups residing in a specific place.13
Interestingly, most of the petitioners were literate and in some cases wrote the petitions
themselves, but mostly they acted through the protector de naturales who brought their
case before the corregidor or his substitute.
There are some common elements which were present in most petitions: the document
presenting the petition was often accompanied by a copy of an entry from the baptismal
and/or marriage register and the transcription of a hearing of witnesses who backed the
petitioner’s claim. Sometimes tribute receipts were displayed. Similar types of proof
were sometimes also employed by the opponents, often a cacique of a guaranga or
pachaca who claimed to be the competent authority of the petitioner. Additional docu-
mentation explained this view. For about half of the cases a final judgement was not
reached, but in most others the petitioners were successful in presenting their claim
and obtained the desired fuero, or were confirmed as belonging to it.
 COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW 487

Figure 1. Localities in the corregimiento Cajamarca where the forasteros mentioned in the analyzed
documents lived. Map elaborated by Sebastian Wintner for the author.

Figure 2. Localities where the forasteros mentioned in the documents were originally from (white
circles) and destiny of out-migration from Cajamarca (black and white circle) in analyzed documents.
Map elaborated by Sebastian Wintner for the author.
488 S. ALBIEZ-WIECK

These fueros, especially those of being forastero and Inca, were referred to as being a
privilege and benefit, and were granted by an authority and ‘owned’, and also heritable.
Most of the petitioners tried to get recognized as indio forastero, but all other fiscal cat-
egories were also present, including the indio originario as the ‘normal’ tribute category
of the settled indigenous population.14
In the case of the forasteros and yanaconas or other quinteros, the fuero consisted
of being exempt from all mita services and having to pay only the reduced tribute
called quinto15 directly to the Crown’s exchequer, the Inca being exempt even
from this—at least until the revisita by Cabrera in the mid-18th century mentioned
below. Mestizos were generally exempt from mita and tribute payment (Argouse
2007, 7; Pearce 2001, 80–82).16 Given these privileges, the categories Inca, forastero,
yanacona and mestizo seemed desirable from a fiscal point of view. Those who could
make this claim tried to get recognized as Incas, while most of the other petitioners
sought to be acknowledged as forasteros. Only two petitioners wanted to leave this
category: one to get recognized as tasilla or originario,17 the other to be categorized
as mulatto.18

Ambiguous categories: mixtos and tasillas

This leads me to another fiscal category whose privileges and obligations are less clear,
claimed in a petition by Andrés Fernández Pizarro: that of the mulatto. According to colo-
nial laws, mulattoes were exempt from the mita, but had to pay tribute (De los tributos, y
tassas de los Indios 1680, ley VIII; Ares Queija 2000, 87). Hünefeldt (2010, 272) points to
the fact that mulattoes were exempt from tribute if they participated in a militia. Appar-
ently, the privilege of tribute exemption became more widespread as the colonial era pro-
gressed (Mansilla Escobedo 1981, 53).19
In the case of Andrés Fernández Pizarro, his attempt to get recognized as a mulatto was
contradicted by Juan Bautista Astoquipan, cacique and governor of the province of Caja-
marca, who tried to prove the former’s forastero status. Pizarro argued that he did not
want to pay the quinto tribute but it is not entirely clear from the documentation if his
status as mulatto would imply no tribute payment at all. Unfortunately, we do not
know whether Fernández Pizarro was successful with his claim, although Astoquipan’s
arguments seem to be quite convincing.
In many Cajamarcan documents, mulattoes appear as mixtos, often also as mixtos quin-
teros. According to a petition from the end of the 18th century, these mixtos quinteros were
exempt from mitas because of the ‘mescla que tienen de mestiso o mulato’.20 The peti-
tioner, Pablo Peres, was the son of a mulatto and an indigenous woman and was categor-
ized in the file as ‘de casta mulato’.21
Mestizos were seemingly not categorized as mixtos,22 but the denomination of mixtos
sometimes was applied to indios forasteros who did not seem to have had African ancestry.
An example for this is the petition by the forastero Guaman Corpa from 1674. His case was
assigned, through a note in the file, to the ‘mistos’.23 That the mixtos quinteros were not
necessarily Afrodescendants is also clear from a collective petition, dating from about a
century later, by the ‘mixtos quinteros tributarios de la clase de los chachapoyas’.24 In
the course of the lawsuit, the petitioners, or at least some of them, were labelled as foras-
teros, yanaconas and Chachapoyanos, i.e. natives of the Chachapoyas province, but never
 COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW 489

as mulattoes. In the census of 1803, the mixtos quinteros were categorized as paying the
same amount of tribute as the forasteros quinteros.25
Returning to the attractiveness of the forastero category, the other person who, at least
in some point in his life, tried to escape the forastero category was Juan Guaccha.26 Even
though his biological father pertained to the ayllu forastero and his baptismal certificate
emanated from the register of the forasteros he—in contrast to many other similar cases
—reinforced his claim of belonging to his mother’s ayllu, Chuquimango. And according
to the procurador de naturales, Tocastanta Guatay, who acted on behalf of Don Pedro Car-
guacancha, principal of the ‘yndios mitmas tasillas’, Guaccha at some point registered
himself voluntarily in the ‘ayllu de los tasillas’, even adopting a new surname.27 This,
however, was categorically denied by Guaccha. Unfortunately, this petition remained
without a final resolution. It broaches the question of the term tasilla. According to Espi-
noza Soriano (2006, 199), the term tasillas is the Spanish denomination for mitimaes. In
the petitions I analyzed for this article, the term tasilla appeared mostly when referring to
the competence of Astoquipan, denominating him ‘cacique y gouernador de los yndios de
las siete guarangas tasillas y forasteros de esta prouincia de Caxamarca’.28 In a census from
1803, the ‘pachaca de tasillas’ was listed separately from the ‘guaranga de mitmas’ and as
paying the same tribute as the ‘Chachapoyanos de Caxamarca’, i.e. four pesos, two reales.29
Accordingly, the term tasilla seems to refer to a group of people who did not belong to one
of the seven guarangas in Cajamarca and might have had a history of migration at some
point in time, whether overlapping with that of the mitimaes or not. It seems clear that
there is no overlapping with the colonial migrant category of the forastero. The term
itself, with the reference to the term tasa, could indicate a special tribute payment,
maybe because of a special labor draft or another kind of (prehispanic) migration. But
this has to remain mere speculation.
What is surprising in the assessment of these different categories is the importance of
the term quintero and the desirability of the payment of the quinto real instead of the
‘normal’ tribute, since according to Wightman (1990, 130) ‘direct tribute payments by
groups of forasteros were rare’—at least until the 1720s. This suggests that in this
regard the situation for forasteros in Cajamarca was indeed different from southern
Peru. In the next section, I will investigate whether this was also the case for categories
with prehispanic precursors as opposed to more clearly Spanish categories.

Continuities and changes in migrant categories

As has already been mentioned, some colonial categories had prehispanic precursors
which were reshaped under Spanish rule. Some of the colonial migrant categories were
only linked to actual migration that took place under Inca rule. To better understand
these categories and the importance of ancestry, I will briefly outline the continuities
and changes of the originally prehispanic terms mitma and yana, followed by an analysis
of the changes that the Spanish colonial category forastero experienced.

Prehispanic migrants under Spanish rule: mitimaes and yanacona

The relationship between migration and the colonial state has a considerable historical
depth in the region under study, as the Incas had already categorized people according
490 S. ALBIEZ-WIECK

to their migratory status. In the Tahuantinsuyo, permanent as well as temporal forms of

relocations existed which were generally connected to specific labor drafts.30 The most
prominent resettled people were the mitimaes whom the Inca employed among others
to secure, pacify and ‘civilize’ new territories, to organize special labor drafts, and to intro-
duce new agricultural techniques (Oberem 1990, 477). Another category to which
migration was not inherent but often present were the yanacona, who did not belong
to particular communities and kinship groups but rather to the Inca state (Cuena Boy
2006, 403–4; Covey and Elson 2007, 313–16). The picture that scholars paint of the
Tahuantinsuyo suggests that the control of peoples’ movement was much stricter under
Inca than under Spanish rule with a complex relationship between migration and belong-
ing to the corporate kin group of the ayllu.
In prehispanic Cajamarca, mitimaes and a group of ‘yanayacos’ (Espinoza Soriano
1986b, 248) were organized into pachacas and guarangas, an organization which outlasted
the Spanish conquest. With the exception of the caciques, the members of most guarangas
and pachacas had to pay tribute and perform personal labor services, including the colo-
nial mita.31 This duty to serve as mitayos also fell to the members of the guaranga de miti-
maes (De los tributos, y tassas de los Indios 1680, ley IV).32 Some of the mitimaes fled
excessive obligations, thereby being migrants also in the Spanish colonial period.33
Exempt from mita and tribute obligations in Cajamarca were the members of the
pachaca or ayllu Inca, since they were recognized as descendants of the Inca ruler
Tupac Yupanqui.34
The category of the yanacona also outlasted the Spanish conquest and, like the descendants
of the mitimaes, yanacona also had to pay tribute.35 Colonial yanacona can be differentiated
according to their assignment, into those depending directly on the king—the yanacona del
rey—and those working for other Spaniards in haciendas or textile or sugar mills—the yana-
cona de españoles (Gil Montero 2013, 49–50).36 Their status was theoretically hereditary, but
they could also be temporarily assigned to this category (Saignes 1987, 137).
According to several scholars (Cuena Boy 2006; Gil Montero 2013, 41, 44, 61; Wight-
man 1990, 151; Covey and Elson 2007, 313), in the southern parts of the viceroyalty, and
especially in the 16th and 17th centuries, the number of yanacona grew considerably
because indigenous people who tried to escape the payment of tribute and the fulfillment
of the mita duties became yanacona and attached themselves directly to Spaniards—and
sometimes also to indigenous lords—who needed their workforce and in exchange would
pay their tribute for them. The excessive tribute and mita requirements by the Spanish
Crown were therefore the driving force for converting to yanacona status. As yanacona
attached themselves to Spaniards, these people fulfilled labor service but did not pay
the tribute directly, a situation that somewhat resembled that of the prehispanic yanacona.
As time progressed, in some regions yanacona came to be a synonym for native people
unattached to an indigenous community (Monteiro 2006, 202–3; De los tributos, y tassas
de los Indios 1680, ley V). In southern Peru, as well as in Cajamarca, the category of the
yanacona became closely associated with that of the forastero.37 This connection is
visible in a number of documents which speak of a ‘clase de indios yanaconas forasteros’
registered together.38 However, other documents differentiate clearly between forasteros
and yanacona, such as in the case of Juan Moya, forastero, who reported in 1680 that
he had served as a yanacona to a Spaniard earlier in his life (Argouse 2016, 190). I
think it is important to bear in mind the distinction between yanacona de españoles
 COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW 491

and del rey. The association of yanacona with forasteros makes most sense in the case of
the latter, since the commonality lay in the fact that both were directly subject to the
Crown and, at least in the Cajamarcan case, had to pay the royal quinto which led to
the denomination quintero.
Another denomination used in the sources associated with the term quintero is indio
suelto. According to Oberem (1981, 307), indios sueltos were free and unattached to
haciendas but obliged to serve the mita. However, this does only partly concur with the
usage of the term in Cajamarcan sources where quinteros seem to have been exempt
from mita service. An example of a petitioner categorized as indio suelto is Juan Gómez
Mendoza, who was recognized as quintero in 1795, paying the special tribute of the
quinto directly to the Crown. His opponents had alleged that he was a yanacona from a
certain hacienda.39 It is unclear if Gómez Mendoza was a forastero but, as mentioned, gen-
erally forasteros were labelled quinteros.

Colonial migrants: ¿from originarios to forasteros and back again?

The indio forastero arose as a new category in the Spanish colonial system and experienced
some changes as the Spanish colonial period progressed. Forasteros were those indigenous
individuals who left their home community and moved to another. The motivation for
becoming a forastero seems to have been quite similar to those reported for colonial yana-
cona: to escape excessive tribute and mita obligations.
The studies on the forasteros in southern Peru and the Audiencia de Quito attribute
varying importance to the ties the forasteros maintained with their communities of
origin, especially the cacique, being still listed there as either tribute payers or not.
These ties seem to have been strongest in the first generation of migrants (Gil Montero
2013, 59–60). This leads to another important point: the category of the forastero was her-
editary. The descendants continued to be considered as forasteros—without having actu-
ally migrated—and as such were exempt from the mita and had to pay no, or at least less,
tribute than the indios originarios. This is explained by the fact that by leaving their com-
munities, forasteros no longer had access to land and therefore fewer means to meet their
tribute obligations.40 What happened, then, if the forasteros acquired land? Could they
become integrated completely into their new communities and eventually, perhaps after
several generations, reconvert to originarios? I will try to show how, in the course of
the 18th century, the possession of land and houses gained relevance in the categorization
of one’s tributary status, determining the amount of tribute one had to pay. In the same
period, despite contrary efforts by the Spanish Crown, the categorization by migrant
ancestry was maintained and the forastero category was not abolished but further
differentiated.
Ogburn (2008, 311) observes the possibility of a reclassification of forasteros into ori-
ginarios as early as the end of the 16th century. He relates that in Saraguro in the Audi-
encia de Quito, forasteros could acquire land by marriage or purchase. He also points to
the fact that the local population was open to a reclassification because as new originarios,
they could help them shoulder their tribute burden. Powers, focusing on the whole Audi-
encia de Quito, dates an attempt of reclassification by the colonial authorities much later,
referring to the redefinition of indigenous status ‘according to territorial affiliation instead
of ethnic origins’ in 1720 (1995, 56).
492 S. ALBIEZ-WIECK

In contrast to Ogburn, Sánchez-Albornoz (1978, 39–45, 180–84) specifies for the

southern Andes that, due to the opposition of the community, a forastero did not
become originario just by acquiring land. In the second half of the 18th century this led
to a distinction between forasteros with and without land (con and sin tierras), with the
former having to pay the same amount of tribute and fulfill the same services as the ori-
ginarios. At the same time, colonial authorities were encouraged to register the forasteros
con tierras side by side with the originarios, although this instruction was not implemented
very often. To end the differentiations and exemptions, in the phase of the Bourbon
reforms, fallow land was to be redistributed among the indigenous people without land,
i.e. also to the forasteros sin tierras. For the Intendencia de Lima, Guarisco (2011, 63–
64) recounts only an occasional adoption of the originario status by forasteros. Interest-
ingly, she points to the possibility that people of mixed ancestry could also acquire this
status. This is confirmed by a census from the partido Celendín in Cajamarca in 1790,
where ‘mixtos forasteros’ were listed.41 This assertion connects to the section about mulat-
toes and mixtos quinteros above, which showed that forasteros were sometimes closely
associated with this group.
Wightman (1990, 55–56) dates the ‘Crown’s decision to abandon the originario–foras-
tero dichotomy’ to the 1720s and states that all forasteros con tierra should be henceforth
called originarios or nephews, sobrinos de originarios. However, she concedes the continu-
ity of the forasteros sin tierra or vagos during the course of the 18th century.
This statement concurs with the conclusions reached by Pearce (2001) in an analysis of
the general census of 1725–1740, which had been undertaken by the viceroy José de
Armendáriz, Marqués de Castelfuerte, in the early Bourbon period. It also applied to Caja-
marca. Besides recording the indigenous population, the measures undertaken by Castel-
fuerte intended a redistribution of land to forasteros without prior access to it. The final
part of the instruction for the census obligated all forasteros with land and property in
their communities of residence to full tribute payment and mita service, exactly like ori-
ginarios. This measure was also to encompass yanacona not assigned in encomienda.
Therefore, theoretically, all forasteros and many yanacona would be recategorized as ori-
ginarios and would disappear. According to Pearce, this reclassification took place widely
in many regions of the viceroyalty, although the obligation for forasteros to the mita in the
mines of Potosí and Huancavelica does not seem to have been fully enforced (Pearce 2001,
76–77, 82–83, 101–2).
In the corregimiento of Cajamarca, the revisita ordered by Castelfuerte was carried out
by José Damián de Cabrera in 1732 (Huamachuco) and 1734–1735 (Cajamarca and
Huambos), leading to a retasa in 1735. The general rule by then was that forasteros
paid the reduced tribute rate of the quinto directly to the Crown. Some forasteros,
however, continued to pay tribute to their original caciques.42
The direct impact of the revisita and retasa by Cabrera is reflected in a petition by Incas
dating from only three years after the retasa. According to this document, in the partido
Cajamarca, the revisita listed 232 forasteros with land, of whom 99 were Incas,43 and 1,825
were forasteros and yanacona without land. The petition reports that the revisita differen-
tiated between ‘forasteros originarios, forasteros quinteros, los yndios manifestados piones
y chachapoias y demás mixtos’.44 From those, the forasteros and Incas were obligated to
pay five pesos each since they all owned houses and land, and the other ‘yndios forasteros,
yanaconas y de pion por constar que no tenian tierra’ only four pesos each, which was ‘el
 COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW 493

precio que pagan los yndios forasteros sin tierras del distrito de la real caja de Truxillo’.45
The Incas objected to the recent imposition of this obligation, arguing that they were
exempt ‘desde ynmemorial tiempo a esta parte’46 but seemingly failed to retain their pri-
vilege of exemption, a decision approved by the viceroy.47 And, in fact, the census of the
partido Cajamarca of 1803 listed the ‘pachaca de Incas’, which then consisted of only three
men with their families, as being assigned the same tribute rate as the other guarangas, i.e.
six pesos four reales.48 In contrast to this, ‘originarios y forasteros con casas y tierras’49
were assessed to the rate of five pesos three reales, while ‘forasteros quinteros’ were
rated at four pesos two reales.50
The intended redistribution of land to forasteros accompanying the general census
(Pearce 2001, 101–2) was echoed in a petition from 1746. In it, Don Pablo Pomayambo
from Guzmango (Cajamarca) complained that he had not been registered at all in the revi-
sita by Cabrera, neither as originario nor as yanacona. He tried to prove his status as fo-
rastero, claiming that he owned ‘ningunas tierras de por si ni de comunidad’,51 i.e. he had
no land acquired personally, nor did he have right to community land as originarios did.
He referred to a repartition of ‘tierras que por ordenanzas estan mandado’52—although it
is clear that despite these decrees, not all forasteros owned land. This suggests that decrees
regarding the redistribution of land were known locally but had not been implemented
comprehensively. Pomayambo’s case is especially interesting, because it is the only case
in which the absence of land ownership is the central strategy in the petition to prove a
forastero status: a possibility that had opened up because of the Crown’s politics regarding
land ownership and tributary status.
Henceforth, the central criterion for the amount of the tribute was no longer a person’s
status as foreigner but the possession of land and houses. However, forastero as a category
persisted until at least the beginning of the 19th century (cf. infra).
But even before this redistribution, intended to be all-encompassing, the possession of
land and houses by forasteros existed, at least since the second half of the 17th century.
One example is the case of Diego de la Cruz, grandson of a couple from Piscobamba in
Atun Conchucos. When his grandparents migrated to Otusco (Huamachuco) they
received a ‘solar y casa que les fue señalado por los principales de él porque ayudaban a
los naturales de él’.53 Another example is the case of Lucas Yupa, who, before moving
to Cajabamba (Cajamarca), had owned houses in Trujillo.54 It is unclear whether Yupa
also possessed land and/or houses in his current place of residence in Otusco, but he
was granted the forastero status, notwithstanding his having been registered as tribute
payer during some period in his life, and the continuous attempts of his opponents to
compel him to fulfill the mita. In the future, he only needed to pay the quinto.55
Another quintero was Don Santiago de las Casas, who in 1752 bought a solar in the district
of San Sebastián in Cajamarca from Manuel Avilés, who belonged to the parcialidad de
forasteros.56

Claiming belonging through descent in the petitions

As mentioned above, migrants and their descendants were assigned to, or had already
established in prehispanic times, their own social units equivalent to those of the origina-
rios. Generally, a person’s belonging to such a guaranga, pachaca or ayllu through descent
did not change after the Spanish conquest. This is why the attempt to prove ancestry is a
494 S. ALBIEZ-WIECK

fundamental point in most petitions throughout the colonial period. Two kinds of evi-
dence are put forward regarding this point: certificates of baptism and sometimes mar-
riage, and corresponding questions in the examination of witnesses. It is fascinating
how the petitioners used this evidence to put forward their claims, being successful
even in cases in which the evidence would not seem to fully support their argument,
adopting different strategies that focused on the most favorable parts of their and their
ancestor’s biographies.
The baptism (and not the birth itself) was registered in a parish book. As is to be
expected, most of the certificates in the petitions from the town of Cajamarca were
from the indigenous parish of San Antonio, with the exception of that of Fabian
Serquen, a mixto quintero, with a certificate from Santa Catalina, the parish for the Spa-
niards. However, witnesses attested that he and his brother were children of indios foras-
teros and they were officially recognized as such.57 Until at least the beginning of the 19th
century, the baptismal records occasionally register the ayllu of the baptised, as in the case
of ‘Clara de tres dias de edad, hija legítima de Antonio Quiliche y de Maria Raico (aillo
forastero quintero)’ born in 1812.58 During some periods, there seem to have existed sep-
arate books for the different categories, as the mentioning of a ‘libro de los baptismos de
los forasteros’59 and of a book of the baptisms of the ‘negros y mulatos’60 corroborates. In
other periods the different categories were seemingly listed in separate parts of the book, as
in the example of the ayllu forastero in 1693, in this case in a section about foreigners
(‘extranjeros’).61 The registration of baptism in separate (sections of) books would indicate
that it was very clear to which group an individual belonged. However, this was not always
true, especially in cases in which intermarriage between different groups took place.
In the petitions, copies of the certificates of these parish books were presented to prove
the belonging to a pachaca or ayllu of the baptised themselves or of their parents. What at
first sight seems to be straightforward evidence is nevertheless sometimes called into ques-
tion. In the case of the petition of Juan Eusebio Quevedo, allegedly of the parcialidad Inca,
Don Luis Caruarayco, ‘cacique principal y gobernador de las siete guarangas’, states that
the certificate of baptism Quevedo presented should not be taken into account because the
category of the baptized and his forefathers was incorrectly declared before the priest.62
Since I have found no further mention of such a practice, it is difficult to determine
whether or not this alleged procedure of false declaration in order to obtain privileges
tied to a certain category was a common occurrence, but it would have presented a formid-
able strategy to switch categories, since colonial authorities generally accepted the infor-
mation in the certificates as true, as happened also in the case of Quevedo, who was
admitted as Inca.
Another point present in the case of Quevedo which is closely connected to the element
of descent is the aspect of legitimacy introduced by the Spaniards.63 They considered the
offspring of a married couple as legitimate; those of unwed individuals were called ‘natural’
children, and those conceived outside a marriage, bastards. According to colonial laws
which are referenced in the petitions, only legitimate children should follow the fuero
and naturaleza of the father, the illegitimate ones that of their mother.64
But the rule of succession in the fuero, depending on the legitimacy, was not always fol-
lowed. Such was the case of Francisco Gómez, who, despite being a natural son, success-
fully demanded his father’s fuero. He tried to have his name erased from the tribute list of
the ayllu Cañari (part of the guaranga mitma), arguing that he belonged to the ayllu Inca.
 COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW 495

The governor of the guaranga mitma argued that Francisco was subject to him since he
was the natural son of Pedro Díaz, from the ayllu Inca, and since his mother, Clara
Cissa, was a member of the ayllu Cañari he should follow her fuero. However, Francisco,
backed by the cacique of the ayllu Inca, proved through witnesses from several ayllus that
his mother Clara was the legitimate daughter of Joana Guaman Ticclla, from the ayllu
Cañari, and of Cristóbal Díaz, from the ayllu Inca. The witnesses all claimed that he
should follow the fuero of his father and grandfather, and Francisco was indeed successful
with his claim—despite the accusations of his opponents, namely the governor of the gua-
ranga mitma, that he and the cacique Inca were acting maliciously and that Gómez had
previously tried to become a member of the ayllu forastero, assigning himself a forastero
father.65 Gómez aptly used the argumentation of his witnesses to overlook the illegitimacy
in his own generation, and instead emphasize the legitimacy of his mother’s generation.
The strategy to recur to the preceding generations if the legitimacy was doubtful in the
present one was also put forward by Jorge Sarango.66 He claimed to be the legitimate son
of Don Francisco Sarango and Antonia Chuquimian, both from the ayllu forastero. He
presented the baptismal certificate of his mother Antonia, identifying her as the legitimate
daughter of Juan Bautista and Ana Petrona. Curiously, in the marriage certificate of
Antonia Chuquimian to his father, his mother’s mother was now allegedly Constanza
Chimi of the ayllu Malcaden. Sarango’s adversary, Don Juan Bautista Astoquipan, rejected
Sarango’s claim, arguing that he was born before the marriage of his parents and therefore
should follow the fuero of his mother and his brother Nicolás, who was paying tribute in
the same guaranga.67 Astoquipan added that those who pretended to benefit from the
fuero of mestizos, forasteros, Incas ‘and other mixtures’68 should not be allowed to
change their status because this was detrimental to the Crown, and their obligations
would fall on the other members of their pachaca.69 Because of alleged tribute debts,
Sarango was put in prison and Astoquipan managed to present the baptismal certificate
of Sarango in which he was denoted as ‘bastard son of Juan Michiga and Antonia Chuqui-
mian of the ayllu Malcaden’.70 Even so, Sarango, through the protector de naturales, main-
tained his claim, alluding to his ‘long-standing possession’ of being ‘forastero y yanacona
del rey’71 and having been paying the quinto. Unfortunately, the case remains without res-
olution, ending with a demand for further evidence and information about Antonia’s
status by the judge. But nevertheless it shows how the petitioners tried to present their
case from the most advantageous angle, changing strategies in the process to secure
their claim and using the evidence that helped them most.
Another case in which the legitimacy of the petitioners was in question is that of the
brothers Francisco Hernando and Joseph Lorenzo in Santiago de Chuco (Huamachuco).72
They claimed, through witnesses rather than through a baptismal certificate, that they
were the legitimate children of Pedro Alonso, forastero, and Juana Pisanpanyac (or Aguas-
pintas). Pedro Alonso was, for his part, the son of Pedro Juan, originally from Chacha-
poyas, and of Juana Ysauel of the guaranga Guacapongo, i.e. an originaria. After the
death of Pedro Juan (in Otusco), Juana Ysauel remarried, thereby becoming the wife of
Alonso Chucumango (or Pillaumango) from the town of Usquil in the same encomienda.
As Hernando and his brother were still small, they did not know that Chucumango (or
Pillaumango) was not their biological grandfather, and that therefore they were rightfully
forasteros and had for three decades been incorrectly paying tribute like originarios and
assigned to the pachaca de Guaso in the guaranga Guacapongo.73 According to the
496 S. ALBIEZ-WIECK

document, the revisita of 1644 also listed Pedro Alonso as the son of Alonso Chucumango,
not recognizing his forastero status, and according to the defensor de indios of the revisita,
the principales from Santiago de Chuco could not say anything about his origins. But
despite this contrary evidence, the judge of the current revisita recognized the testimonies
of the witnesses presented by the petitioners, and they and their descendants were declared
forasteros. The decision seems surprising, insofar as the judge gave the testimonies of the
petitioners more credit than those of a defensor de naturales and an entry in a past revisita.
As ascendency was a crucial aspect in many petitions, it might be expected that in cases
in which the descent from a certain person was doubtful, the physical aspect could be used
to infer his or her blood relationship and the belonging to a certain category. But the
change to or rather recognition of a certain fuero, naturaleza or calidad74 was rarely
related to the physical aspect of the petitioner; at most this occurred only if the status
of mestizo or mulatto was involved. Such is the abovementioned case of Andrés Fernández
Pizarro, who claimed to be a mulatto but was contradicted by Juan Bautista Astoquipan,
cacique and governor, who argued that he was visibly indigenous, stating ‘que por su
aspecto el d[ic]ho indio se rreconozca ser lexitimamente yndio’.75 In that case, the peti-
tions resemble the gracias al sacar studied by Twinam (2009) and Fuentes Barragán
(2015). Perhaps the most important difference compared with the gracias al sacar is
that the petitioners in Cajamarca argued that they had the right to a certain fuero by
birth, while the petitioners of the gracias al sacar wanted to adapt their position acquired
by birth to that acquired later in life and erase the stains of illegitimacy and African descent
(Fuentes Barragán 2015, 67). But like the petitioners in the gracias al sacar, the Cajamar-
can petitioners emphasized only those aspects of their ascendancy that favored them most,
employing the available evidence strategically. And in doing that, they were highly
successful.

Networks and integration into the local society

Besides the presentation of documentary evidence, the testimonies of witnesses who could
attest to the reputation of the petitioners often played a decisive role. These two types of
evidence were closely intertwined: the certificates corroborating the ‘officialized’ belonging
of the petitioners, and the witnesses to their public reputation, whose centrality in colonial
life has been underlined by several studies (e.g. O’Toole 2005; Cope 1994). To convince
these individuals to testify on their behalf, the petitioners needed social capital and
good networks within the local society. The fact that they could recur to a number of wit-
nesses from other ayllus and from other social groups, such as Spaniards, confirms that
they were not isolated strangers in the local societies but deeply immersed in the local
social structure. This was also due to the fact that many of them were living in Cajamarca
already in the second or third generation. Generally, the witnesses highlighted that part of
the ancestry that was most advantageous to the petitioner’s claim.
As in the abovementioned case of Francisco Hernando and his brother, generally the
witnesses were from local pachacas and guarangas and not from the ayllu forastero. A
good example of this is the petition by Francisco Gómez, cited above. The witnesses to
testify to his belonging to the ayllu Inca were from the ayllus Culquimarca, Cayao and fo-
rastero. This pattern of presenting witnesses from different ayllus or pachacas was evident
also in many other petitions, for example in that by Pedro Benito and Matías de Castro,
 COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW 497

who claimed to belong to the ayllu forastero and presented witnesses from the pachacas
Parana and Uchuc.76 Often, but not always, the witnesses were literate, and from time
to time they formed part of the local authority and nobility. By presenting these kinds
of witnesses, the petitioners strengthened their claim decisively and took an important
step towards the success of their petition, proving to be well-connected members of the
local society.
Wightman (1990, 88) mentions three mechanisms of inclusion of forasteros in the
receiving communities: ‘marriage into existing ayllus, submission to local kurakas, or
the development of an ayllu forastero’. The existence of the last mechanism, aptly called
‘kin-group of strangers’ by Wightman (1990, 89), has been amply demonstrated by the
petitions presented above. Both marriage and the creation of the ayllu forastero prove
the integration of the migrants into the local society. Generally, the migrants were men,
married to local woman. Only in two cases were both (grand)parents forasteros,77 and
in only one other the mother was a forastera.78 As can be seen in nearly all of the presented
cases, especially those in which the legitimacy of the petitioner was doubtful, belonging to
the ayllu, pachaca or guaranga of the mother was always a point under discussion.
In contrast to this, there exists one case in which belonging is vindicated not through
descent, but through the link to the spouse: Lorenzo Condor, ‘indio de la pachaca de qui-
chuas’,79 was married to Juana Miranda, mestiza. And since men married to mestizo
women were exempt from the mita and heavy personal services in order not to leave
their wives alone, as decreed by an ‘ordenanza del señor virrey Don Francisco de
Toledo’,80 Condor claimed this privilege. As evidence, Condor presented the copy of his
marriage certificate as well as several witnesses who also offered the information that
Condor was originally from Lucma and that his wife was currently in the town of
Gorongo. Even though Condor was apparently native from another province, he did
not belong to the ayllu forastero, nor did he claim to—probably because the mestizo
status was much more attractive. It seems that Condor’s petition was crowned with
success, as were most others.
However, even if the petitioners obtained or were confirmed in the desired status, their
opponents did not always respect the judge’s decision, as the case of Pablo Peres shows. He
was acknowledged as mixto quintero, a decision pronounced publicly. However, in the fol-
lowing years, first his wife and later he himself were repeatedly forced to serve mita in the
Hacienda Guacraruco. He complained bitterly about the disregard of the repeated resol-
utions. The tenant of the Hacienda excused himself, pointing to the low number of
‘indios de taza entera’ available in the jurisdiction, an argument at least partly acknowl-
edged by the subdelegado. However, we have no information about whether Peres’s
fuero was respected in the future.81

Conclusion
On account of the Spanish conquest, the forasteros arose as a new and important category.
Nevertheless, more generally the categorization of different kinds of migrants and their
descendants with an according colonial regulation was nothing new in northern Peru:
since prehispanic times, migrants had become integrated into the local structure of cor-
porate social units based on descent. Some of them, the mitimaes and yanacona, continued
in an adapted manner under Spanish rule and underwent significant changes throughout
498 S. ALBIEZ-WIECK

the colonial period. The category of the yanacona became closely associated with the fo-
rasteros. Like the successors of the prehispanic migrant units, the forasteros formed a new
ayllu/pachaca and inserted themselves into the social structure through marriage and the
creation of networks which they could activate on their behalf in order to defend or
improve their privileged fiscal status. In the local power play, more often than not they
were successful in evading local caciques who wanted to keep them under the originario
category. Some managed to acquire land, which was fomented more widely by the colonial
administration in the 18th century with the intention of abolishing the category. However,
forasteros with and without land persisted until at least the beginning of the 19th century,
even if those with land were equal in terms of duties to the originarios. In this regard, this
‘kin-group of strangers’ (Wightman 1990, 89) experienced a similar fate to that of the des-
cendants of the prehispanic foreign nobles, the Incas. They, as well as mestizos and mulat-
toes, had an even more desirable fuero and naturaleza due to their being closer to the
Spaniards. It is important to bear in mind that although the categorization of the peti-
tioners presented in this article resulted from migration, the actual movement in space
was not always carried out by them, but rather by some of their ancestors and thus
some of the petitioners could, strictly speaking, also be labelled as sedentary.

Abbreviations: ARC Archivo Regional de Cajamarca, Peru; AGNP Archivo General de la

Nación, Lima, Peru

Notes
1. Forastero literally means outsider or stranger.
2. The corregimiento Cajamarca was created in 1565. It was constituted of the provinces Cajamarca,
Huambos in the north, and Huamachuco to the south. The corregidor resided in Cajamarca, and
a teniente de corregidor in Huambos and Huamachuco, respectively. In 1759 Huamachuco was
separated from Cajamarca and constituted as a corregimiento of its own. In 1784 the system of
corregimientos came to an end and the intendencias were created. The provinces of Huambos and
Cajamarca became partidos in the intendencia Trujillo (Gaitán Pajares et al. 2002, 9, 24).
3. Some frequently cited examples are Cope 1994, O’Toole 2005, Stolcke 2008, and Böttcher,
Hausberger and Hering Torres 2011, but a number of other authors have worked on
similar topics.
4. For a migration of indios towards territories outside the Indies, especially to Spain, see van
Deusen 2015.
5. The term peticiones de cambio de fuero does not appear as such in the sources. In denomi-
nating these documents peticiones de cambio de fuero I follow Argouse (2007), who studied
some petitions of Cajamarcan mestizos in the 17th century. Similar petitions from Quito
have been studied by Caillavet and Minchom (1992). However, they call them ‘declarations
of mestizos’. The more-or-less unified aim and structure of these documents permits a group-
ing under this common term. It seems that they existed in several parts of the Viceroyalty, as
an example from Jauja shows (AGNP, Superior Gobierno, Go-Bi 2, Leg 79, Cuad. 397, 1796).
6. Fuero is difficult to translate into English because of its manifold meanings. It may refer to a
custom, a code, a grant of privileges, a code of laws, or a jurisdiction—and mostly rather a
mixture of all these elements. In the context of the documents analyzed here, its prime
meaning refers to a fiscal category associated with certain privileges.
7. This long confrontation about the status of the city and its Spanish inhabitants is described in
detail by Argouse (2016).
8. If these units were indeed pre-Inca, they must have had a non-Quechua name, e.g. in the local
culle language. However, such a denomination is unknown.
 COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW 499

9. Most petitions are located in the Archivo Regional Cajamarca (formerly Archivo Departa-
mental de Cajamarca) in the Ramo Corregimiento, Serie Causas Ordinarias, mainly in the
Subserie Tributo and Serie Protector de Naturales, Subserie Tributo and the later ones in
the Ramo Intendencia, Serie Tributos. As only a very small part of the archive is catalogued
(Gaitán Pajares et.al. 2002) and only a part of the uncatalogued series have been revised, it is
quite possible that more petitions are to be discovered. The earliest known example is sub-
mitted by a mestizo (ARC, Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 36,
1604). I also found a few petitions in the Archivo General de la Nación in Lima and, very
recently, in the Archivo Regional de la Libertad, Trujillo.
10. ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos, Leg. 1, Exp. 30, 1665 and ARC, Inten-
dencia, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 19, 1799.
11. The visita was an administrative instrument similar to a census conducted by colonial offi-
cials. One of its primary goals was the assessment of the tributary population. Theoretically,
every five years a revisita should take place to account for changes in the population and to
elaborate a new tribute list, a retasa.
12. It is difficult to know where Cajamarcans for their part migrated to. The 1613 census of indi-
genous people in Lima shows a considerable number of Cajamarcans residing there (Cook
and Escobar Gamboa 1968).
13. For the former see, for example, ARC, Corregimiento, Ordinarios, Tributos, Leg. 02, Exp. 24,
1680; for an entire ayllu, see ARC, Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Tributos, Leg. 03,
Exp. 23, 1738; and for the latter group, see ARC, Intendencia, Tributos, Leg. 1, Exp. 7, 1789.
14. The basis of the indigenous tribute was supposed to be the commonly owned land of the
ayllu. All indios originarios had access to that land, and the tribute was collected by the
cacique and his mandones and passed on the whole to the Spanish authorities. Forasteros,
as well as mestizos and mulattoes, did not have access to that land and therefore did not
have to pay (the entire amount of) tribute. Individual ownership of land was initially some-
thing only possible for Spaniards and indigenous nobles.
15. This was not the same as the quinto which had to be paid to the Crown as a percentage of the
metal extracted in the Indies. From the word quinto the term quintero was derived. Oberem
(1981, 307) reports for the Audiencia de Quito that the documents, instead of talking about
mitayos, i.e. indigenous people serving the rotative labor obligation of the mita, employed the
term indios quintos, due to being called to the mita every fifth year. In Peru and Alto Perú/
Charcas, only a seventh part of the indigenous population was exercising the mita at a time.
As forasteros did not have to serve mita, it seems improbable that the term from Quito was
related to the one used in Cajamarca.
16. This exemption of mestizos is patent in a petition by the mestizo Diego de Villacorta. He was
the son of an indigenous woman and a Spaniard and was recognized in 1604 as a Spaniard—
rather than as a mestizo (ARC, Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 36,
1604). This case confirms the abovementioned assertion by Argouse regarding the fact that a
fuero mestizo did not exist yet at the beginning of the 17th century and that people of mixed
European-Indigenous ancestry were categorized as either Spaniards or indios.
17. ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 43, 1671–1672. This is
the case of Juan Guaccha, presented in the subsequent section.
18. ARC, Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Leg. 83, Cat. 1713.
19. Hünefeldt (2010, 275) also refers to cases in which indio was the more desired category, to
escape from being a negro. See also Restall 2005.
20. ARC, Intendencia, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 12, 1791–1810, f. 3v.
21. Ibid., f. 11r.
22. This is shown by a petition by Domingo de Artiaga from the town of Cajamarca. He tried,
probably successfully, to be recognized as a free mestizo after having incorrectly been regis-
tered as mixto quintero during a visit to Celendín (ARC, Causas Ordinarias, Leg. 133, Cat.
2017, 1749, f. 1r).
23. ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 45, 1674–1680, f. 1r.
24. ARC, Intendencia, Tributos, Leg. 1, Exp. 7, 1789.
500 S. ALBIEZ-WIECK

25. ARC, Intendencia, Tributos, Leg. 1, Exp. 31, 1803.

26. ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 43, 1671–1672.
27. Ibid., f. 3r. The document states literally: ‘de su propio mutuo se numero y enpadrono en el
dicho ayllo de los tasillas y aora a mudado el sobrenombre llamandose Juan Chupne’.
28. ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 54, 1693–1695, f. 8r.
29. ARC, Intendencia, Tributos, Leg. 1, Exp. 31, 1803.
30. Labor categories that did not always involve spatial movement were that of the camayos
(occupational specialists or artisans) and the female ritual specialists acllas and mamaconas
(Julien 2010, 73, 77, 86; Julien 1993, 205; Andrushko et al. 2009, 67–68).
31. The colonial mita was a seasonal labor obligation institutionalized by the viceroy Francisco
de Toledo in the decade of the 1570s. Men between 18 and 50 years of age had to work for a
certain period in different tasks such as mining, agriculture and in the urban context
(Charney 1996; Gil Montero 2013, 40; Argouse 2016, 14–15; Sánchez-Albornoz 1983, 31).
32. Mitayos were those performing the temporal labor service of the mita as opposed to the pre-
hispanically resettled mitimaes (hispanicized form of mitmaqkuna) (Larson, Harris, and
Tandeter 1995, 393).
33. ARC, Intendencia, Tributos, Leg. 1, Exp. 31, 1803. Another form of migration of mitimaes
after the Spanish conquest was the return to their home communities from which they
had been removed by the Incas, a movement the Spaniards tried to impede (Oberem
1990, 479).
34. ARC, Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Leg. 122, Cat. 2737, 1736.
35. Covey and Elson (2007, 325–26) have pointed out for the yanacona of Yucay in southern
Peru that their ‘tribute requirements began at a younger age and lasted longer than what
was decreed in the Toledan visita general’ but that nevertheless, ‘yana life […] was preferable
to tasa service’.
36. Covey and Elson (2007, 313) note for Yucay that some yanacona had indigenous masters. In
Cajamarca, I have found no such case so far. However, I think this would be very likely, as
some Cajamarcan caciques, like Juan Astoquipan and Pedro Cossapilco, did possess hacien-
das and were also assigned mitayos to work for them (Argouse 2004).
37. In the Audiencia de Charcas or Alto Perú, according to Sánchez-Albornoz (1978, 53–54), the
term forastero came to replace the term yanacona, as both often designated indigenous
people residing outside their communities of origin but with the difference that for forasteros
often the community of origin was known, which was not always the case for yanacona.
Cuena Boy (2006) points to a contrary possibility: the conversion of forasteros into yanacona
after the reforms by Toledo. Gil Montero (2013, 49–50) indicates the similarity between the
two categories by reporting that in Chichas, in the same region, forasteros and yanacona were
listed in the same registers, separate from indios originarios—and mitayos registered in Potosí
—but in separate lists inside this book. Saignes (1987, 138–45), however, places more empha-
sis on the differences between forasteros and yanacona, as the former had much stronger
links to their home towns, but also points to the continuum which exists between these cat-
egories. Escobari de Quejarazu (2005, 227–28) doubts the assumption of many scholars about
the alienation of the yanacona from their families and communities of origin.
38. ARC, Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Leg. 130, Cat. 2963, ff. 1r–2v, 1746.
39. AGNP, Superior Gobierno, Go-Bi 1, Leg. 45, Cuad. 600, 1795.
40. For Alto Peru, Sánchez-Albornoz (1978, 39–45) cites the decree by the Viceroy Marqués de
Castelfuerte from 1734 as the beginning of the tribute payment but notes that in the Audi-
encia de Quito the forasteros continued paying their tribute until at least 1765 in their com-
munities of origin.
41. ARC, Intendencia, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 10, 1790, f. 4r. That the access to land was also a
problem for mestizos becomes clear in a subsequent revisita of Cajamarca dating to 1778
(AGNP, Derecho Indígena, Leg. 23, Cuad. 388, 1778, f. 13r).
42. This was the case with more than 200 forasteros originally from the Conchucos province who
were at the moment of the retasa living in Huamachuco. They continued to pay tribute to
their cacique in Conchucos, a practice to be abated in the future (ARC, Corregimiento,
 COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW 501

Causas Ordinarias, Tributo, Leg. 03, Exp. 05, 1730–1731). The document refers to the last
retasa of Huamachuco from 1694, which allegedly registered 1,929 originarios, 533 quinteros
‘que es lo mismo que yanaconas’ and 675 forasteros, 266 being originally from Conchucos.
The originarios should pay ‘quatro pesos seis rreales y tres quatrillos de a ocho en platta al
año’, and the quinteros and forasteros ‘quatro pesos de a ocho cada uno al año’ (ARC, Cor-
regimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Tributo, Leg. 03, Exp. 05, 1730–1731, ff. 20v–21r). Similar
documents by Cabrera referring to problems during his revisita are (ARC, Corregimiento,
Causas Ordinarias, Tributo, Leg. 03, Exp. 08, 1731–1732) and (ARC, Corregimiento,
Causas Ordinarias, Tributos, Leg. 03, Exp. 06, 1731–1733).
43. The Inca were allegedly comprised under the category of the forasteros but enumerated in a
separate booklet.
44. ARC, Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Tributos, Leg. 03, Exp. 23, 1738, f. 2r.
45. Ibid., f. 3r.
46. Ibid. 2r.
47. Ibid. f. 2v.
48. ARC, Intendencia,Tributos, Leg. 1, Exp. 31, 1803, f. 24v.
49. Ibidem.
50. Ibid., f. 33r. The exact tribute rates, especially of the originarios, vary slightly according to the
town, but the general variation among the different categories is comparable.
51. ARC, Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Leg. 130, Cat. 2963, 1746, f. 4r.
52. Ibid., f. 2v.
53. ARC Corregimiento, Causas ordinarias, Tributos, Leg. 2, Exp. 23, 1672–1680, f. 9r. Unfortu-
nately, the petition contains no resolution so we do not know if Diego de la Cruz was recog-
nized as forastero, but the course of the lawsuit suggests this possibility.
54. Yupa underlines the fact that back in Trujillo, he had been an alcabalero, paying the sales tax
called alcabala. During most of the colonial period, tribute-paying ‘indios’ and products pro-
duced by them were supposed to be exempt from the alcabala but they had to pay alcabala if
they were trading with imported goods (Anna 2003, 88, 155).
55. ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 18, 1676.
56. ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos, Leg. 02, Exp. 23, 1752, f. 1r.
57. ARC, Intendencia, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 19, 1799.
58. Index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City 1668–
1841, 357, photo 908. See Perú, registros parroquiales y diocesanos, 1603–1992: Cajamarca
> Cajamarca > Santa Catalina > Bautismos 1668–1841. Database with images. FamilySearch:
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9P3P-9NRD?cc=1877097. Accessed 22 Febru-
ary 2016.
59. ARC, Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Tributos, Leg. 02, Exp. 25, 1680, f. 6r. See also ARC,
Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Leg. 72, Cat. 1149, f. 2r.
60. ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 43, 1671–1672, f. 1r.
61. ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 54, 1693–1695, f. 3r.
62. ARC 1711–1719, f. 5r/v.
63. In prehispanic times, there existed polygamy among the nobles, with the sons of the principal
wife succeeding the father as cacique. The abolition of polygamy among the lords and thereby
the delegitimization of some of their descendants with the imposition of Spanish rule led to
several conflicts and lawsuits, since from then on only the offspring of Christian monog-
amous marriage was considered legitimate. Some specific cases in which the descendants
of prehispanic secondary wives claimed their birthright have been studied by Espinoza
Soriano (1986a). Julien (2010, 46) mentions that descent in the Tahuantinsuyo is commonly
held to be patrilineal, but that also some indicators for bilateral descent have been found.
64. ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 54, 1693–1695, f. 8r;
ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 43, 1671–1672; ARC,
Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Tributos, Leg. 02, Exp. 25, 1680.
65. ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 30, 1665.
66. ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 54, 1693–1695.
502 S. ALBIEZ-WIECK

67. Ibid., f. 9r.

68. Ibid., f. 8r.
69. Ibid., f. 8r.
70. Ibid., f. 10r.
71. Ibid., f. 12r.
72. ARC, Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Tributos, Leg. 02, Exp. 25, 1680.
73. However, they had not been serving mita. It was argued that this was due to their residence in
the estancia of Angasmarca, but it is not clear to me why this was a valid argument.
74. The term calidad appears in the petitions of Don Sebastian Jurado Tupac Inca Yupanqui
(ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos, Leg. 02, Exp 24, 1752–1777, f. 7r)
and that of Pedro Benito and Matías de Castro (ARC, Corregimiento, Ordinarios, Tributos,
Leg. 02, Exp. 24, 1680, f. 2r).
75. ARC, Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Leg. 83, Cat. 1713, 1678–1679, f. 3r.
76. ARC, Corregimiento, Ordinarios, Tributos, Leg. 02, Exp. 24, 1680.
77. One case is the already mentioned petition by Diego de la Cruz, whose grandparents were
from Piscobamba (ARC, Corregimiento, Causas ordinarias, Tributos, Leg. 2, Exp. 23,
1672–1680). The other one is that of Juan Luna, whose parents, Lazaro Paria Guanca and
Francisca Chiton, were both of the ‘aillo de estranjero’, and even one of his baptismal god-
fathers was a ‘chachapoia’ (ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos, Leg. 01,
Exp. 33, 1666–1673, f. 1r). However, it has to be taken into account that the origin or
status of both parents was not always stated.
78. The petition was written by Francisco Gabriel, natural son of Josepha Sanches from the ayllu
forastero and an unknown father. Gabriel was registered in the guaranga of ‘yndios que
llaman chontas’. Although the document remains unfinished, the course of the file suggests
the probable success of his claim (ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos,
Leg. 02, Exp. 10, 1736–1737).
79. ARC, Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Leg. 83, Cat. 1694, 1678.
80. The text of the ordenanza is presented. Interestingly, the same copy of the text had been used
before by Pedro de la Cruz (ARC, Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Leg. 83, Cat. 1694,
1678, 4vs), which shows that the people of the community shared the knowledge about
such legislation.
81. ARC, Intendencia, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 12, 1791–1810. In a document from the Archivo
Regional de la Libertad, Trujillo (Peru), which dates from ten months later, Peres relates
being imprisoned and having been categorized injustly first as _mitayo_ and later as _yanacona_
in the Hacienda Guacraruco (Intendencia, Pedimentos, Leg. 437, Exp. 4033, 27.10.1810).

Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the staff of the Archivo Regional de Cajamarca for their support, as well as to my
colleagues from the Universities of Cologne and Bonn, especially Kerstin Nowack, Karoline Noack,
Barbara Potthast and Tobias Schwarz for their comments on the developing project, and last but
not least to Aude Argouse for bringing to my attention the existence of the petitions and also
for commenting on a previous version of the manuscript. Part of this work was supported by
the University of Cologne Forum: Ethnicity as a Political Resource – Perspectives from Africa,
Latin America, Asia, and Europe and by the Re-Entry Grant of the University of Cologne as well
as by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (grant 1943/1-1) = Cologne, as well as by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (grant 1943/1-1).

Biographical note
Sarah Albiez-Wieck studied Latin American Studies in Cologne, Lisbon and Mexico City.
She holds a PhD. in Anthropology of the Americas from the University of Bonn. From
 COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW 503

2010 to 2013 she was the Managing Director of the Research Network for Latin America
Ethnicity, Citizenship, Belonging. Since 2014 she has been Senior Researcher at the Depart-
ment for Iberian and Latin American History at the University of Cologne. She is also
principal investigator at the Global South Studies Center. Her research interests include
colonial and precolonial Mexico and Peru and questions of migration, belonging and
colonialism.

ORCID
Sarah Albiez-Wieck http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0865-2025

Works cited
Manuscript Sources
Archivo General de la Nación (Lima, Peru)
Revisita y empadronamiento de los indios del corregimiento de Cajamarca (1778). AGNP, Derecho
Indígena, Leg. 23, Cuad. 388. 27 ff.
Juan Gómez Mendoza, indio tributario de Chota, sobre se le exluya del servicio de Yanacona de la
estancia de Quilcate (05.10.1795). AGNP, Superior Gobierno, Go-Bi 1, Leg. 45, Cuad. 600. 9 ff.
Melchor Camargo y Tupac Yupanqui, natural de San Gerónimo de Tunán, Jauja, solicita su
excención del pago de tributos y servicios personales por ser descendiente de la nobleza
incaica por línea materna y mestizo por la paterna (10.01.1796). AGNP, Superior Gobierno,
Go-Bi 2, Leg 79, Cuad. 397. 11 ff.

Archivo Regional de Cajamarca (Peru)

Don Diego Villacorta, mestizo, vecino del pueblo de Santiago de Chuco, solicitando la exhibición de
prestación de sus servicios personales, pago de tasas y tributos en Huamachuco por ser hijo de
español (04.02.1604–31.03.1604). ARC, Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Tributos, Leg. 01,
Exp. 36. 35 ff.
Rafael Olivito sobre cancelación de tributos de forasteros y yanaconas. (1622–1623). ARC,
Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Tributo, Leg. 01, Exp. 23, 35 ff.
Diego Sánchez, vecino de Cajamarca, hijo natural de Juan Sánchez, mestizo y de María Magdalena,
mestiza, solicitando se lo exhonere del pago de tributos por ser mestizo (02.05.1662). ARC,
Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Tributos, Leg. 02, Exp. 47. 4 ff.
El Protector de Naturales de la provincia de Cajamarca, Gerónimo Tamarin litigando con el cacique
de los indios Yngas Paulo Tito por introducción ilícita en su ayllu a Francisco Gomez y así evitar
el pago de sus tributos. (17.04.1665–20.08.1665). ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales,
Tributos, Leg. 1, Exp. 30. 9 ff.
Autos seguidos por el protector de naturales, Pedro de Zavaleta en nombre de Juan Luna, del ayllu
de forasteros, contra Martin Asto, por cobro duplicado de tributos (09.07.1666–25.03.1673).
ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 33. 10 ff, 9 recibos.
El protector de naturales, Don Pedro de Zavaleta, en nombre del indio Juan Guaccha, natural de la
villa de Cajamarca litigando con Don Pedro Caruacancha cobrador de los indios mitmas tasillas
solicitando sobre pago de sus tributos al ayllu de Chuquimendo donde pertenece (12.09.1671–
19.05.1672). ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 43. 4 ff.
Diego de la Cruz, vecino de Otuzco, solicitando ante el corregidor se lo considere indio forastero y
sujeto al pago de los reales quintos por ser hijo legitimo de Fabián de la Cruz y Juana Agaypintas,
difuntos, que pertenecieron al Ayllu de los Forasteros (1672–14.06.1680). ARC, Corregimiento,
Causas ordinarias, Tributos, Leg. 2, Exp. 23. 10 ff.
504 S. ALBIEZ-WIECK

Autos seguidos por el Protector de Naturales, Matheo Dominguez, en nombre de Francisco

Guaman Corpa, natural del ayllu de forasteros del pueblo de Caxabamba, sobre su exclusión
del padrón de tributarios de indios naturales de Caxabamba (03.07.1674–12.01.1680). ARC,
Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 45. 5 ff. y 6 recibos.
El protector de los naturales Antonio Fernandez Duran en nombre de Lucas Yupa, indio del pueblo
de Cajabamba del ayllu de los forasteros solicitando se lo exhonere del pago de tributos por ser
indio forastero (02.05.1676–14.08.1676). ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos,
Leg. 01, Exp. 18. 49 ff.
Andrés Fernández Pizarro, vecino de la villa de Cajamarca, solicitando ser declarado como mulato y
no como indio forastero (24.05.1678–20.01.1679). ARC, Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Leg.
83, Cat. 1713. 6 ff.
Lorenzo Cóndor de la pachaca de los quichuas, del pueblo de Lucuma de la provincia de Lucuma de
la provincia de Huamachuco, solicitando ser exceptuado del trabajo de la mita por estar casado
con una mestiza (13.07.1678–12.08.1678). ARC, Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Leg. 83, Cat.
1694.
Francisco Hernando y Joseph Lorenzo, indios forasteros originarios de la ciudad de Chachapoyas,
solicitando ser exonerados del pago de tributos en el pueblo de Santiago de Chuco (12.04.1680).
ARC, Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Tributos, Leg. 02, Exp. 25. 7 ff.
Pedro Benito y Mathias de Castro, indios forasteros originarios del obraje de Sta Cruz solicitando
ser exonerados del pago de tributos en la pachaca de Lurac ubicada en Otuzco (12.06.1680).
ARC, Corregimiento, Ordinarios, Tributos, Leg. 02, Exp. 24. 11 ff.
El protector de naturales, Don José de Vargas y Rivera, en nombre de Jorge Sarango, indio del ayllu
de los forasteros, litigando con el maestro de campo Don Juan Bautista Astoquipan, sobre pre-
tender ser indio tributario de la guaranga de Malcadén (07.08.1693–25.01.1695). ARC,
Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 54. 12 ff. y 3 recibos.
El Capitán Dn Sebastian de Vargas y Rivera, protector de naturales del corregimiento de Cajamarca
en nombre de Juan Eusevio Quevedo solicitando al maestro de campo Dn Luis Caruarayco sur-
enocimiento como miembro del ayllu de los Ingas y por lo tanto no debe pagar tributos ni rea-
lizar trabajos de mita (27.05.1711–13.12.1719). ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales,
Tributos, Leg. 2, Exp. 1. 12 ff.
El Maestro de Campo Don José Damián de Cabrera, Juez revisitador de indios de los repartimientos
de Cajamarca, Guamachuco y Guambos, ordenando a los dueños y administradores de las
Haciendas, presenten la numeración de los indios y la rendición de cuentas de los tributos del
tercio de San Juan y Navidad desde el año de 1727 a 1731 (14.08.1730–23.10.1731). ARC,
Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Tributo, Leg. 03, Exp. 05. 46 ff.
Ynforme presentado a vuestra excelencia por Don Damián Cabrera, juez revisitador de las provin-
cias de Cajamarca, Huamachuco y Huambos, sobre algunos hacendados y en particular los
eclesiásticos regulares que las administran y que no permiten a los cobradores de tributos, regis-
trar a los indios que les sirven en dichas Hdas por lo que solicita se les imponga una pena
(30.09.1731–10.04.1732). ARC, Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Tributo, Leg. 03, Exp. 08. 9 ff.
Provisión otorgada por D. Felipe, Rey de Castilla, declarando que los descendientes de Inca Tupac
Yupanqui, sean liberados del tributo y otros servicios personales por pertenecer a la Nobleza Inca
(01.07.1736). ARC, Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Leg. 122, Cat. 2737. 4 ff.
El protector de los naturales el licenciado D. Ramon Jimenes en nombre de Gabriel de la Cruz soli-
citando ser numerado entre los indios forasteros y por pagar ahi sus tributos (16.10.1736–
24.01.1737). ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos, Leg. 02, Exp. 10. 5 ff.
Don Juan Bautista Tito Atauche Uscamayta, cacique principal y gobernador de los principales
nobles del ayllu de los Ingas, solicitando se aclare el pago de tributos de indios ingas, quienes
gozan el privilegio de indios nobles (18.06.1738). ARC, Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias,
Tributos, Leg. 03, Exp. 23. 3 ff.
Memorial presentado por D. Pablo Pomayambo, vecino del pueblo de San Francisco de Guzmango,
sobre la revisita que hizo D. José Damián de Cabrera y en el cual no se encuentra su nombre
como indio originario ni yanacona de dicho pueblo (06.12.1746). ARC, Corregimiento,
Causas Ordinarias, Leg. 130, Cat. 2963. 6 ff.
 COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW 505

Domingo de Artiaga, vecino de Cajamarca, solicitando ser considerado como mestizo y no como
mixto quintero, por ser hijo de los mestizos de Miguel Arteaga y Manuela Fernández de
Cabrera (11.02.1749). ARC, Causas Ordinarias, Leg. 133, Cat. 2017. 5 ff.
El protector de naturales del corregimiento de Cajamarca, en nombre de Manuel Avilés de la par-
cialidad de los forasteros, solicitando licencia para vender una casa que está en el barrio San
Sebastián y que le dejó su padre Pascual Avilés para poder cancelar su deuda a los Reales
Tributos (26.05.1752). ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos, Leg. 02,
Exp. 23. 3 ff.
Autos seguidos por el protector de naturales, Joseph Martinez del Castillo, en nombre de Dn.
Sebastián Jurado Tupac inca Yupanqui solicitando exoneración del tributo por ser descendiente
legtítimo del Inca (06.11.1752–1777). ARC, Corregimiento, Protector de Naturales, Tributos,
Leg. 02, Exp 24. 9 ff.
Los indios mixtos quinteros tributarios de la clase de los Chachapoyas residentes en el azufre com-
prension de San Marcos litigando con don Bernardo Paredes y el teniente coronel Don Gonsales,
dueño de dichas tierras, por haberles matriculado en ella y cargarles en el tributo de taza entera
(06.02.1789). ARC, Intendencia, Tributos, Leg. 1, Exp. 7. 6 ff.
Razón general de los habitantes del partido de Zelendín y sus estancias (1790). ARC, Intendencia,
Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 10. 31 ff.
El protector de naturales, Benito Arbildo, en nombre del indio quintero Pablo Peres, natural del
pueblo de Jesús, litigando con el cobrador de tributos D. Marcos Fernandez, por ser improce-
dente que labore como mitayo en la Hda Pasul (27.10.1791–06.02.1810). ARC, Intendencia,
Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 12. 11 ff.
El protector de naturales Fernando Chuguitas en nombre de Fabián Serquén y Sebastian Quiroz
originarios del pueblo de Jesús denunciando a Doña Jacoba Lozano por obligarles a permanecer
en su hacienda sin estar matriculados (22.01.1799). ARC, Intendencia, Tributos, Leg. 01, Exp. 19.
4 ff.
Padrón de tributarios del partido de Cajamarca, actualizada por el subdelegado juez real don
Joaquín Miguel de Arnaco y el apoderador Fiscal don Bernardo Borié (1803). ARC,
Intendencia,Tributos, Leg. 1, Exp. 31. 87 ff.
El maestro de campo Damián de Cabrera, presentando la memoria de los indios tributarios y quin-
teros que sirven en varias haciendas de Guamachuco y Cajabamba y que estan debiendo a la Real
Caja del tercio de San Juan y Navidad de 1727 a 1730 (07.01.1731–31.01.1733). ARC,
Corregimiento, Causas Ordinarias, Tributos, Leg. 03, Exp. 06. 27 ff. y 70 recibos.

References
Andrushko, Valerie A., Michele R. Buzon, Antonio Simonetti, and Robert A. Creaser. 2009.
Strontium isotope evidence for prehisotric migration at Chokepukio, Valley of Cuzco, Peru.
Latin American Antiquity 20 (1): 57–75.
Anna, Timothy E. 2003. La caída del gobierno español en el Perú: El dilema de la independencia.
Lima: IEP Inst. de Estudios Peruanos.
Ares Queija, Berta. 2000. Mestizos, mulatos y zambaigos (Virreinato del Perú, siglo XVI). In Negros,
mulatos, zambaigos: Derroteros africanos en los mundos ibéricos, edited by Berta Ares Queija and
Alessandro Stella, 75–88. Seville: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-americanos.
Argouse, Aude. 2004. Transcription d’un document inédit: répartition de mita en 1666.
Rationalisation de l’économie et main d’œuvre indienne dans le Corregimiento de Cajamarca.
Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Etudes Andines 33 (1): 97–134. http://https://bifea.revues.org/
6027?lang = en. Accessed 15 January 2016.
———. 2007. ‘Soi tal mestizo abido y tenido por tal desde que nasi’: Peticiones indígenas de cambio
de fuero, Cajamarca, Perú, 1642–1674. Colonial Latin American Historical Review 16 (4): 401–27.
———. 2008. ¿Son todos caciques? Curacas, principales e indios urbanos en Cajamarca (siglo XVII).
Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Etudes Andines 37 (1): 163–84. https://bifea.revues.org/3393.
Accessed 7 April 2016.
506 S. ALBIEZ-WIECK

———. 2016. Je le dis pour mémoire. Testaments d´indiens: lieux d´une justice ordinaire: Cajamarca,
Pérou, XVIIe siècle. Paris: Les Indes savantes.
Böttcher, Nikolaus, Bernd Hausberger, and Max-Sebastián Hering Torres, eds. 2011. El peso de la
sangre: Limpios, mestizos y nobles en el mundo hispánico. Mexico City: El Colegio de México.
Cahill, David. 2013. ‘Becoming Inca: Juan Bustamente Carlos Inca and the roots of the Great
Rebellion.’ Colonial Latin American Review 22 (2): 259–80. http://doi.org/10.1080/10609164.
2013.808471. Accessed 4 May 2016.
Caillavet, Chantal, and Martin Minchom. 1992. Le Métis imaginaire: idéaux classificatoires et
stratégies socioraciales en Amérique latine (Xvie–XXe siècle). L’Homme 32 (122/124): 115–32.
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/hom_0439-4216_1992_num_32_122_
369527. Accessed 2 October 2014.
Charney, Paul. 1996. Negotiating roots: Indian migrants in the Lima Valley during the colonial
period. Colonial Latin American Historical Review 5 (1): 1–20.
Cook, Noble D., and Mauro Escobar Gamboa. 1968. Padrón de los indios de Lima en 1613. Lima:
UNMSM. Facultad de Letras. Seminario de Historia Rural Andina.
Cope, R. D. 1994. The limits of racial domination: Plebeian society in colonial Mexico City; 1660—
1720. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Covey, R. A., and Christina M. Elson. 2007. Ethnicity, demography, and estate management in six-
teenth-century Yucay. Ethnohistory 54 (2). http://ethnohistory.dukejournals.org/content/54/2/
303.full.pdf + html. Accessed 15 February 2017.
Cuena Boy, Francisco. 2006. Yanaconazgo y derecho romano: ¿una conjunción extravagante.
Revista de Estudios Histórico–Jurídicos (28): 401–24. http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script =
sci_arttext&pid = S0716-54552006000100012.
De los tributos, y tassas de los Indios: Título V. 1680. In Recopilación de leyes de los reinos de las
Indias. Vol. 6. Madrid. http://www.leyes.congreso.gob.pe/Documentos/LeyIndia/0206005.pdf.
Accessed 13 October 2014.
Escobari de Querejazu, Laura. 2005. Caciques, yanaconas y extravagantes: La sociedad colonial en
Charcas s. XVI–XVIII. 2nd ed. La Paz: IFEA.
Espinoza Soriano, Waldemar. 1986a. La poliginia señorial en el Reino de Cuismanco. In Historia de
Cajamarca: II. Etnohistoria y lingüistica, edited by Fernando Silva Santisteban, Waldemar
Espinoza Soriano, and Rogger Ravines, 69–108. Cajamarca: Instituto Nacional de Cultura,
Departamental de Cajamarca.
———. 1986b. Los mitmas yungas de Collique en Cajamarca, siglos XV, XVI y XVII. In Silva
Santisteban, Espinoza Soriano, and Ravines, Historia de Cajamarca, 247–90.
———. 2006. La etnia Chilcho y su enclave de mitmas en Cajamarca, siglos XV–XX. Investigaciones
sociales 10 (16): 193–238. http://sisbib.unmsm.edu.pe/bibvirtualdata/publicaciones/inv_sociales/
n16_2006/a08.pdf. Accessed 19 February 2016.
Fuentes Barragán, Antonio. 2015. Las gracias al sacar en Córdoba del Tucumán: Fuente privilegiada
para el estudio de la sexualidad y la familia. In América en la burocracia de la monarquía
española: Documentos para su estudio, edited by Jaqueline Vasallo and Noelia García, 65–88.
Córdoba: Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades; Editorial Brujas.
Gaitán Pajares, Evelio, Flaminio Álvarez Rodríguez, Cecilia Barrantes Zurita, Rossina Urteaga
Guerrero, Bertha Angulo Mori, and Luz E. Sánchez Pellisier. 2002. Corregimiento de
Cajamarca: Inventario documental causas civiles. Cajamarca: Asociación Obispo Martínez
Compañón. 1593–1785.
Gil Montero, Raquel. 2013. Migración y tributación en los Andes: Chichas y Lípez a fines del siglo
XVII. Anuario de Estudios Americanos 70 (1): 39–65.
Gil Montero, Raquel, and Axel E. Nielsen. 2010. The ‘forasteros’ of Lípez: Ethnohistorical and
archaeological perspectives on the peoples of Bolivia’s southern Altiplano (thirteenth to eight-
eenth centuries). Colonial Latin American Review 19 (3): 437–59.
Glave, Luis M. 1996. The ‘Republic of Indians’ in revolt: (ca. 1680–1790). In South America, edited
by Frank Salomon and Stuart B. Schwartz, 502–57. The Cambridge history of the native peoples of
the Americas 3, Part 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW 507

Guarisco, Claudia. 2011. La reconstitución del espacio político indígena: Lima y el Valle de México
durante la crisis de la monarquía española. Castelló de la Plana, Spain: Universitat Jaume I.
Hünefeldt, Christine. 2010. Esclavitud, percepciones raciales y lo político: La población negra en la
era independentista en Hispanoamérica. In Indios, negros y mestizos en la independencia, edited
by Heraclio Bonilla, 270–89. Bogotá: Editorial Planeta Colombiana.
Ibáñez Cueto, Carmen. 2015. Diversidad y heterogeneidad, pero ante todo migrantes. In Dinámicas
de inclusión y exclusión en América Latina: Conceptos y prácticas de etnicidad, ciudadanía y per-
tenencia, edited by Barbara Potthast, Christian Büschges, Wolfgang Gabbert, Silke Hensel, and
Nikolai Grube, 203–16. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert; Madrid: Iberoamericana.
Julien, Catherine. 1993. Finding a fit: Archeaology and ethnohistory of the Incas. In Provincial
INCA: Archaeological and ethnohistorical assessment of the impact of the Inca state, edited by
Michael A. Malpass, 177–233. Iowa: University of Iowa Press.
———. 2010. Die Inka: Geschichte, Kultur, Religion. Munich: Beck.
Larson, Brooke, Olivia Harris, and Enrique Tandeter, eds. 1995. Ethnicity, markets, and migration
in the Andes: At the crossroads of history and anthropology. Durham: Duke University Press.
Mansilla Escobedo, Ronald. 1981. El tributo de los zambaigos, negros y mulatos libres en el virrei-
nato peruano. Revista de Indias 41 (1): 43–54.
Monteiro, John M. 2006. Labor systems. In The Cambridge economic history of Latin America,
edited by Victor Bulmer-Thomas, John H. Coatsworth, and Roberto Cortés Conde, 185–233.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Noack, Karoline. 2003. Caciques, escribanos y las contrucciones de historias: Cajamarca, Perú, siglo
XVI. In Élites indígenas en los Andes: Nobles, caciques y cabildantes bajo el yugo colonial, edited
by David Cahill and Blanca Tovías. Quito, Ecuador: Ediciones ABYA-YALA.
———. 2011. La construcción de diferencia en la zona de contacto: interrogantes al respecto de la
etnicidad. In Ethnicity, citizenship and belonging: Practices, theory and spatial dimensions, edited
by Sarah Albiez, Nelly Castro, Lara Jüssen, and Eva Youkhana, 35–63. Frankfurt am Main:
Vervuert; Madrid: Iberoamericana.
Oberem, Udo. 1981. Contribución a la historia del trabajador rural en América Latina: ‘Conciertos y
Huasipungeros’ en Ecuador. In Contribución a la etnohistoria ecuatoriana, edited by Segundo
E. Moreno Yánez and Udo Oberem, 299–342. Otavalo, Ecuador: IOA Instito Otavaleño de
Antropología.
———. 1990. Das Inkareich unter politischem, sozialem und wirtschaftlichem Aspekt. In
Altamerikanistik: Eine Einführung in die Hochkulturen Mittel- und Südamerikas, edited by
Ulrich Köhler, 467–92. Berlin: Reimer.
Ogburn, Dennis E. 2008. Becoming Saraguro: Ethnogenesis in the context of Inca and Spanish colo-
nialism. Ethnohistory 55 (2): 287–319. http://ethnohistory.dukejournals.org/content/55/2/287.
full.pdf + html. Accessed 20 October 2014.
O’Toole, Rachel S. 2005. Castas y representación en Trujillo colonial. In Más allá de la dominación y
la resistencia: Estudios de historia peruana, siglos XVI–XX, edited by Paulo Drinot and Leo J.
Garofalo, 48–76. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Pearce, Adrien J. 2001. The Peruvian population census of 1725–1740. Latin American Research
Review 36 (3): 69–104.
Powers, Karen V. 1995. The battle for bodies and souls in the colonial North Andes:
Intraecclesiastical struggles and the politics of migration. Hispanic American Historical Review
75 (1): 31–56.
———. 2009. Andean journeys: Migration, ethnogenesis, and the state in colonial Quito. 2nd ed.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Ramírez, Susan E. 2002. Don Melchior Caruarayco: A kuraka of Cajamarca in sixteenth-century
Peru. In The human tradition in Colonial Latin America, edited by Kenneth J. Andrien, 22–
34. Wilmington, Del: Rowman & Littlefield.
Remy Simatovic, María del Pilar. ed. 1992. Las visitas a Cajamarca 1571–72/1578: Documentos. 2
vols. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Restall, Matthew. 2005. Beyond black and red: African-native relations in colonial Latin America.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
508 S. ALBIEZ-WIECK

Saignes, Thierry. 1984. Las etnias de Charcas frente al sistema colonial (siglo XVII): Ausentismo y
fugas en el debate sobre la mano de obra indígena, 1595–1665. Jahrbuch für Geschichte von Staat,
Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Lateinamerikas 21: 27–75.
———. 1987. Ayllus, mercado y coacción social: el reto de las migraciones internas en Charcas (siglo
XVII). In La Participación indígena en los mercados surandinos: Estrategias y reproducción social
siglos XVI a XX, edited by Olivia Harris, Brooke Larson, and Enrique Tandeter, 111–58. La Paz:
Centro de Estudios de la Realidad Economica y Social.
Sánchez-Albornoz, Nicolás. 1978. Indios y tributos en el Alto Perú. Lima: Instituto de Estudios
Peruanos.
———. 1983. Mita, migraciones y pueblos: Variaciones en el espacio y en el tiempo . Alto Perú,
1573–1692. Historia Boliviana III (1): 31–59.
Sarmiento Gutiérrez, Julio, and Tristán Ravines. 2009. Cajamarca. Historia y cultura. 5th ed.
Cajamarca: Municipalidad Provincial de Cajamarca.
Silva Santisteban, Fernando, Waldemar Espinoza Soriano, and Rogger Ravines, eds. 1986. Historia
de Cajamarca: II. Etnohistoria y lingüistica. Cajamarca: Instituto Nacional de Cultura,
Departamental de Cajamarca.
Stolcke, Verena. 2008. Los mestizos no nacen sino que se hacen. In Identidades ambivalentes en
América Latina (siglos XVI–XXI), edited by Verena Stolcke and A. Coello de la Rosa, 14–51.
Barcelona: Edicions Bellaterra.
Topic, John R., and Theresa L. Topic. 2015. Grados de inclusión: la identidad en el norte peruano
prehispánico. In Dinámicas de inclusión y exclusión en América Latina: Conceptos y prácticas de
etnicidad, ciudadanía y pertenencia, edited by Barbara Potthast, 113–36. Frankfurt am Main:
Vervuert; Madrid: Iberoamericana.
Twinam, Ann. 2009. Purchasing whiteness: Conversations on the essence of pardo-ness and
mulatto-ness at the end of empire. In Imperial subjects: Race and identity in colonial Latin
America, edited by Andrew B. Fisher, 141–66. Durham: Duke University Press.
van Deusen, Nancy E. 2015. Global Indios: The indigenous struggle for justice in sixteenth-century
Spain. Durham: Duke University Press.
Wightman, Ann M. 1990. Indigenous migration and social change: The forasteros of Cuzco, 1570–
1720. Durham: Duke University Press.
Zuloaga Rada, Marina. 2012. La conquista negociada: Guarangas, autoridades locales e imperio en
Huaylas, Perú (1532–1610). Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos; Instituto Francés de Estudios
Andinos.