Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T12:13:06.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Viceregal Persistence versus Indian Mobility: The Impact of the Duque de la Palata's Reform Program on Alto Perú, 1681–1692

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2022

Jeffrey A. Cole
Jeffrey A. Cole*
Affiliation:
Tulane University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Charles II named the Duque de la Palata as viceroy of Perú in 1680 with the hope that he would be able to revitalize the production of royal revenue in the realm. The key to accomplishing that goal, the king believed, was to assign more Indians to the mines and silver mills of Potosí because the crown ostensibly received 20 percent of the silver marked in the Villa Imperial. One-seventh of the adult population of male originarios (Indians living in their assigned pueblos) in the obligated provinces could be assigned to Potosí in any one year under Francisco de Toledo's ordinances, and the Duque was authorized to extend this mita obligation to any or all of the fourteen previously exempted altiplano (highland) corregimientos, that is, to increase the base from which the one-seventh ratio was taken. The number of new corregimientos to be added would depend upon the results of a prerequisite census in the thirty corregimientos of Alto Perú (sixteen mita and fourteen exempted).

Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Research Review , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , 1984 , pp. 37 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 by Latin American Research Review

Footnotes

*

Research for this article was made possible by financial assistance provided by the United States International Communication Agency and the Tinker Foundation.

References

Notes

1. Royal cédula to the Duque de la Palata, San Lorenzo, 25 October 1680, Archivo General de Indias, Seville (hereafter cited as AGI), ramo Audiencia de Charcas (hereafter cited as Charcas) 416, lib. 6, fs. 269–71. The viceroy responded in a letter from Lima on 21 August 1683, AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 16.

2. The Council of the Indies' twin orders are: (1) “Cédula qe se cometio al Conde de Salva Virey pa la reduccion de los Indios,” 28 April 1650, AGI, Charcas, leg. 266, no. 19C; and (2) that of 6 May 1651, ordering that an end be put to indios de faltriquera (pocketed mitayos in silver), described in Francisco Nestares Marín, president of the audiencia of Charcas, to the crown, Potosí, 30 May 1652, AGI, Charcas, leg. 266, no. 15—acknowledging his responsibility for local enforcement of the edict. For various reports concerning compliance with the Potosí mita, see tables 2 and 3, “Estimated Mita Service, 1651–1665” and “Mita Service according to Corregidor Oviedo, 1668–1673” respectively, in Jeffrey Austin Cole, “The Potosí Mita under Hapsburg Administration: The Seventeenth Century” (Ph.D. diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1981), pp. 274, 339. An overview of the process leading from the cédulas of the 1650s to those of the 1680s is Francisco de Valera, “Propuesta, y parecer que haze, y ofrece [to the Archbishop-Viceroy, Melchor Liñán y Cisneros] Sobre el mejor cumplimiento de la cedula de su Magestad de 8, de Julio del año de 676 …,” 30 January 1680, AGI, Charcas, leg. 268, nos. 69A and 69B (printed).

3. The enemies of the Potosí mita, as well as their arguments, are identified in two printed works that defend the system against its detractors: Sebastián de Sandoval y Guzmán, Pretensiones de la Villa Imperial de Potosí (Madrid, 1634); and Nicolás Matías del Campo y de la Rynaga, Memorial apologético, histórico, jurídico, y político (Lima, 1672). Ann Zulawski, a doctoral candidate at Columbia University, is preparing a dissertation that will discuss the competition for Indian labor among the miners of Oruro, the viniculturalists of Pilaya y Paspaya, and the azogueros of Potosí; she will have much to add to the present discussion.

4. The azogueros' guild was prolific in its production of petitions. The two most famous are Sandoval y Guzmán's Pretensiones and Campo y de la Rynaga's Memorial, cited in the previous note. Another notably effective one was issued circa 1680 (AGI, Charcas, leg. 268, no. 70B, printed), which led to a 28 May 1681 cédula to the Duque de la Palata, ordering him to act quickly to revitalize the Potosí mita, AGI, Charcas, leg. 416, lib. 6, fs. 287v–93. Valera, in his “Propuesta y parecer,” lists the sixteen mita provinces and the fourteen exempted corregimientos.

5. Cole, “The Potosí Mita,” chap. 5.

6. The Duque de la Palata to the crown, Lima, 15 December 1682, AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 14. Also noted by Valera in his “Propuesta y parecer,” and by Ramón Ezquerra Abadía, “Problemas de la mita de Potosí en el siglo XVIII,” La minería hispana e iberoamericana: Contribución a su investigación histórica, vol. 1 of the Ponencias del VI Congreso Internacional de Minería; León: Cátedra de San Isidoro, 1970), pp. 491–92.

7. Royal cédula to the president of the audiencia of Charcas, Madrid, 9 December 1670, AGI, Charcas, leg. 416, lib. 6, f. 105v. The reason for the order's suspension is noted in the “Relación de don Melchor de Navarra y Rocaful, Duque de la Palata, Príncipe de Mesa, Virrey del Perú, al Conde de la Monclova, su sucesor, del estado de los diversos asuntos sujetos a su gobierno desde 1680 a 1689,” 18 December 1689, Los virreyes españoles en América durante el gobierno de la Casa de Austria, ed. by Lewis Hanke and Celso Rodríguez (12 vols.; Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, nos. 273–77 and 281–86; Madrid: Editorial Atlas, 1976–80), vol. Perú 6 (no. 285), p. 227.

8. Jeffrey A. Cole, “An Abolitionism Born of Frustration: The Conde de Lemos and the Potosí Mita, 1667–73,” Hispanic American Historical Review 63, no. 2 (May 1983): 307–33.

9. The orders to Castellar were: (1) that of 8 July 1676 (described in the Conde's response to the crown, Lima, 22 February 1678, AGI, Charcas, leg. 268, no. 57); and (2) 16 November 1676, AGI, Charcas, leg. 268, no. 51 (also noted in Castellar's response). The two dicta were repeated for Archbishop-Viceroy Liñán: (3) royal cédula to Archbishop Liñán y Cisneros, Madrid, 13 September 1678, AGI, Charcas, leg. 416, lib. 6, fs. 215–16v (and his response is his letter to the crown, Lima, 7 August 1681, AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 3).

10. Valera, “Propuesta y parecer.”

11. Royal cédula to the Duque de la Palata, San Lorenzo, 25 October 1680, AGI, Charcas, leg. 416, lib. 6, fs. 269–71.

12. For Palata's background and an overview of his other viceregal activities, see Margaret E. Crahan, “The Administration of Don Melchor de Navarra y Rocafull, Duque de la Palata: Viceroy of Peru, 1681–1689,” The Americas 27 (1971): 389–412.

13. Royal cédula to the Duque de la Palata, Madrid, 28 May 1681, AGI, Charcas, leg. 416, lib. 6, fs. 287v–93. Palata's response to that royal order came in his letter of Lima, 15 December 1682, AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 14. The azogueros' petition is AGI, Charcas, leg. 268, no. 70B (printed).

14. The entire procedure is described in the Duque de la Palata's report to the crown of Lima, 21 August 1683, AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 16; the letter is also included verbatim in the Duque's “Relación,” Los virreyes, vol. Perú 6, pp. 217–29. Also see the comments of the Council of the Indies' fiscal on the Palata report of 21 August 1683, of Madrid, 18 May 1685, AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 10; and the crown's response to the viceroy, of Madrid, 10 June 1685, AGI, Charcas, leg. 416, lib. 6, fs. 350v–53v. Royal orders for the other officials to assist the viceroy were issued along with the crown's cédula of San Lorenzo, 25 October 1680 (e.g., that for President Bartolomé González de Poveda is AGI, Charcas, leg. 416, lib. 6, fs. 273–75). Copies of their reports are: (1) Bartolomé González de Poveda to the crown, La Plata, 24 December 1681, AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 4; (2) Pedro Luis Enríquez, corregidor of Potosí, to the crown, Potosí, 24 January 1682, AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 5; (3) the archbishop of Charcas to the crown, La Plata, 28 February 1682, AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 6; and (4) the archbishop of Lima (Liñán) to the crown, Lima, 27 November 1682, AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 13. Finally, an overview of the deliberations and all other preparations for the numeración general is the “Libro y relacion sumaria” that Contador Pedro Antonio del Castillo prepared for the Duque de la Palata, AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 33C.

15. A copy of the instructions sent to priests from Lima, 7 April 1683, is AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 15 (second item). The printed “Instruccion que han de guardar los Corregidores en la numeracion general que se ha de hazer de los Indios, cada uno en su juridicion,” Lima, 24 July 1683, is AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 15 (first item). Another copy of the latter is included in the Archivo General de la Nación, Buenos Aires (hereinafter cited as AGNA), Sala 9, leg. 14.8.10; and it is joined by a one-page instruction to the curates not to impede the government's enumeration, dated 7 April 1683. An excellent summary of this process is Brian M. Evans, “Census Enumeration in Late Seventeenth Century Alto Perú: The Numeración General of 1683–1684,” Studies in Spanish American Population History, ed. by David J. Robinson, Dellplain Latin American Studies no. 8 (Boulder: Westview Press, 1981), pp. 25–44, and especially pp. 28–32. For Evans's description of the pertinent materials in the AGNA, see his “Descripción de las fuentes disponibles para una investigación de la ‘Numeración General’ del Virrey Duque de la Palata, 1683–1684, con información sobre otros manuscritos importantes para la demografía del Alto Perú en el siglo XVII,” Guía de las fuentes en Hispanoamérica para el estudio de la administración virreinal española en México y en el Perú, 1535–1700, ed. by Lewis Hanke, Gunnar Mendoza L., and Celso Rodríguez (Washington, D.C.: Organización de los Estados Americanos, 1980), pp. 24–32. Another province for which the 1680s results are extant is Vilcashuaman, because those data were included by Palata with his letter to the crown, Lima, 6 April 1686, AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 22 (the Vilcashuaman results are no. 22A). So far, however, the results from the rest of lower Perú and the audiencia of Quito have not turned up.

16. Two copies of the instructions for the corregidores are cited in the previous note.

17. In addition to the sources cited in notes 15 and 16, see the Duque de la Palata's “Relación,” Los virreyes, vol. Perú 6, pp. 217–29, and the “Papel de dudas” that Contador Joseph de Villegas submitted to the viceroy in 1685, questioning the ability of the numeración general to accomplish its principal goals, Lima, 12 June 1685, AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 20A.

18. Evans, “Census Enumeration,” p. 28; and Nicolás Sánchez-Albornoz, “Mita, migraciones y pueblos: variaciones en el espacio y en el tiempo: Alto Perú, 1578–1692” (typescript unpublished March 1983), p. 7. Evans and Sánchez-Albornoz have devoted their recent research efforts to the evaluation of the 1683 numeración general results for Alto Perú. Evans has meticulously analyzed the findings for individual pueblos and provinces, while Sánchez-Albornoz has compared the Palata census data to those of Toledo (1573) in the article cited above and the Marqués de Mancera (1645) in “Migraciones internas en el Alto Perú: el saldo acumulado en 1645,” Historia Boliviana 2, no. 1 (1982): 11–19. Both scholars have concluded that the Potosí mita was primarily responsible for the massive migration of Indians out of the sixteen obligated provinces and that the system thus combined with epidemic disease and other, lesser demographic factors to deplete the Indian population of Alto Perú and to disrupt its native society. See also Nicolás Sánchez-Albornoz, Indios y tributos en el Alto Perú (Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 1978); Brian M. Evans, “The Value of the ‘Numeración General’ of 1683–1684 to the Study of Alto Perú in the Late Seventeenth Century” (unpublished typescript); and Evans, “The Holding of the Numeración General of 1683” (unpublished typescript).

19. The impact of the 1683 numeración general is documented in two tomes of complaints: “Representaciones y quejas de las Provincias [La Paz, Tomina, Pilaya y Paspaya, Larecaja, Misque, Sicasica, Omasuyo, Pacajes, and Cochabamba], 1689–1690,” AGNA, Sala 9, leg. 10.3.7 (hereafter cited as R&Q1); and “Representaciones y quejas de las Provincias [Porco, Chayanta, Tarija, Paria, and Carangas], 1689–1690,” AGNA, Sala 13, leg. 18.7.4 (hereafter cited as R&Q2). Also of value are the letter from the Bishop of Cuzco to the crown, Cuzco, 3 October 1692, AGI, Charcas, leg. 271, no. 8; and his informe for the Viceroy Conde de la Monclova “sobre la numeración Gen.1 del año de 683 y Mita de Potosi,” Cuzco, 19 March 1691, AGI, Charcas, leg. 271, no. 8A. The specific sources for the paragraph in question are: R&Q1, fs. 349, 350v, 371 (Pacajes), and 399ff. (Omasuyo); and R&Q2, f. 484 (Porco).

20. So noted by the corregidor of Pilaya y Paspaya, Lorenzo Fernández de Córdova y Figueroa, in a letter to the Conde de la Monclova (not dated but received in December 1689), R&Q1, f. 127.

21. Evans, “Census Enumeration,” pp. 31–33; and Villegas, “Papel de dudas.”

22. R&Q1, f. 3 (La Paz). For the various complaints about the overcounting that this caused, see R&Q1, fs. 12, 24v, 67–67v, 70v, 98v (La Paz), 247 (Sicasica), and 397 (Omasuyo); and R&Q2, fs. 497v (Porco) and 590 (Carangas).

23. R&Q1, f. 67v (La Paz).

24. R&Q1, f. 2 (La Paz); and R&Q2, f. 586v (Carangas).

25. In addition to the references to overcounting in note 22, see Evans, “Census Enumeration,” pp. 33–35 (based on Villegas, “Papel de dudas”); and the bishop of Cuzco to the crown, Cuzco, 3 October 1692, AGI, Charcas, leg. 271, no. 8 (and the informe for Monclova of 19 March 1691; 8A).

26. Villegas, “Papel de dudas.”

27. Two reports from the Duque de la Palata to the crown express his continued faith in his program: the Duque de la Palata to the crown, Lima, 11 October 1687, AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 26; and the Duque de la Palata to the crown, Lima, 19 February 1689, AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 32.

28. Sánchez-Albornoz, Indios y tributos, pp. 26–34, compares the 1573 and 1683 figures for ten altoperuano provinces and finds a decline within them from 161,095 to 93,331; on pp. 76–77, he notes that the number of forasteros in the sixteen mita provinces had come to equal the number of originarios. Evans, “Census Enumeration,” p. 36, notes the failure of the pockets of runaways to materialize; and on p. 37, he provides a table (2.1) entitled “Distribution of Altiplano and Yungas Population, 1683” that considers the number of tributaries versus the percentage of originarios within each province. On the patterns of migration being clear, see Sánchez-Albornoz, “Mita, migraciones,” p. 15.

29. Villegas, “Papel de dudas.”

30. For the Duque de la Palata's argument, see his “Advertencias para la ejecución de los despachos de la nueva retasa y repartimiento de mitas de Potosí, que han de tener presentes los corregidores y dar a entender a los indios,” Lima, 29 April 1689, Archivo Nacional de Bolivia, Sucre (hereinafter cited as ANB), MSS 575, tomo 4, fs. 301a-4. The “Advertencias” are also repeated in the viceroy's “Relación,” Los virreyes, vol. Perú 6, pp. 231–38. For concurrence by Evans and Sánchez-Albornoz, see Evans, “Census Enumeration,” pp. 35–36; Sánchez-Albornoz, “Mita, migraciones,” p. 11; and Sanchez-Albornoz, Indios y tributos, pp. 86–91.

31. The viceroy's intent is also noted in his “Advertencias” (ANB, MSS 575, tomo 4, fs. 301a–4), f. 301a-v. It is clear, moreover, in his subsequent actions.

32. Provisión issued over the signature of the Viceroy Duque de la Palata, Lima, 2 December 1688, ANB, MSS 575, tomo 4, fs. 442–49 (printed). For a rather negative commentary on this decision, see Archbishop Liñán y Cisneros to the crown, Lima, 1 September 1692, AGI, Charcas, leg. 271, no. 6. For Palata's own retrospective, see his report to the crown, Lima, 19 February 1689, AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 32; as well as his “Relación,” Los virreyes, vol. Perú 6, pp. 217–38 (which includes his letter the crown of 21 August 1683 and the text of the “Advertencias”).

33. In addition to the sources cited in the previous note, see the Duque de la Palata's repartimiento de la mita, from Lima, 29 January 1689, AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 30 (it is also reproduced in Contador Castillo's “Libro y relacion sumaria,” AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 33C).

34. Two copies of the 29 January 1689 repartimiento are cited in the previous note. For Palata's reasoning behind his changes for the mita, see his “Advertencias” (ANB, MSS 575, tomo 4, fs. 301a–4). The initial draft of the new repartimiento was prepared by Fiscal Juan González of the audiencia of Lima. It was then sent to La Plata, to be reviewed by the president of the audiencia, the corregidor of Potosí, and the archbishop of Charcas as a junta. This procedure is explained in the viceroy's report to the crown of Lima, 18 March 1688, AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 27A.

35. Palata's “Advertencias” (ANB, MSS 575, tomo 4, fs. 301a–4) and his “Relación,” Los virreyes, vol. Perú 6, pp. 217–38, both describe his tribute ordinances and the rationale for them.

36. Cole, “The Potosí Mita,” pp. 348–58, 403–7.

37. For an overview of the communal nature of the mita and tribute, see Guillermo Lohmann Villena, “La minería en el marco del virreinato peruano. Invenciones, sistemas, técnicas y organización industrial,” La minería hispana e iberoamericana, pp. 654–55. For two examples of how the mita was actually delivered in the mid-seventeenth century, see Biblioteca Nacional del Perú, Lima (hereinafter cited as BNP), item B575, “Paucarcolla: Autos sobre el despacho de la mita de Potosí e información de los caciques de su gran disipación,” Villa de Concepción, 24 October 1669; and BNP, item B585, “Despacho de la mita de Potosí,” Puno, November 1673. An example of the extremes to which a kuraka had to go to do his job was shown by Bartolomé González, who was responsible for delivering the mitayos from Porco and received permission from the audiencia of La Plata to carry a sword and dagger to protect himself from violently defiant Indians, ANB, ramo Minas, tomo 125, no. 20 (1679).

38. Sources for epidemics are R&Q1, fs. 77–78, 108v (La Paz), 141 (Larecaja), 200 (Sicasica), 396, 397, 399v, 401v, 420 (Omasuyo); and R&Q2, fs. 480v, 498v (Porco), 533 (Tarija); also, the bishop of Cuzco's informe of 19 Mar. 1691 (AGI, Charcas, leg. 271, no. 8A), in which he claims that a 1687 epidemic killed eight to ten Indians per day in his diocesis. Abandonment of the mining zone at Porco is described in R&Q2, fs. 483–84.

39. The importance of the kurakas was noted by the Viceroy Conde de Lemos in three letters to the crown: (1) Lima, 12 January 1670, AGI, Charcas, leg. 268, no. 5; (2) Lima, 4 April 1670, AGI, Charcas, leg. 268, no. 14; and (3) Lima, 4 July 1670, AGI, Charcas, leg. 268, no. 16. An excellent study of the relationship between kurakas and the residents of their pueblos is Roger Neil Rasnake, “The Kurahkuna of Yura: Indigenous Authorities of Colonial Charcas and Contemporary Bolivia” (Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 1982); chap. 3 is entitled “Kurakas to Kurahkuna: The History of the Authorities of Yura.”

40. Cole, “The Potosí Mita,” chap. 2.

41. The Duque de la Palata to the crown, Lima, 18 March 1688, AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 27. The viceroy had more time at his post than most of his predecessors because of the crown's problems in finding a successor to take his place. See Antonio Domínguez Ortiz, “Un virreinato en venta,” Mercurio Peruano, no. 453 (1965), pp. 43–51; summarized in Los virreyes, vol. Perú 7, pp. 153–54, the introduction to the section on the Viceroy Conde de la Monclova.

42. The new repartimiento de la mita was signed on 29 January 1689 (AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 30) and sent out to the provinces on 2 February 1689. The deadline for tribute is noted in Palata's “Advertencias” (ANB, MSS 575, tomo 4, fs. 301a–4). It is also referred to throughout R&Q1 and R&Q2. Administration of the mita was placed in the hands of Corregidor Pedro Luis Enríquez of Potosí; correspondence between Enríquez and the corregidor of La Paz, Bernabe Felipe de Aragón, concerning the deadline for mita deliveries (including a copy of the original order for La Paz) is found in R&Q1, fs. 28–39.

43. R&Q1, fs. 5v, 17, 23, 23v, 26, 28v, 45v, 70, 94, 95–96, 98v, 109 (La Paz), 141, 153, 157, 159, 160–160v, 161v, 162 (Larecaja), 167–167v, 169 (Misque), 194, 198, 203v, 231, 232, 252 (Sicasica), 349, 371, 372 (Pacajes), 396, 396v, 397v, 399v, 402, 403v, 407, 408, 418, 424v (Omasuyo), 431v, 433v, 436, 468, 471v-72, 500, 501v, 524, 525, 534v, 558–59, 560v, and 567 (Cochabamba); and R&Q2, fs. 477, 480v, 484, 491, 495, 496, 497, 498 (Porco), 505 (Chayanta), and 588 (Paria).

44. On Indian flight into the yungas, see R&Q1, fs. 6, 24v, 26v, 40–50, 52v-53, 54, 55v, 56, 57v, 58, 59, 69, 71 (La Paz), 115 (Tomina), 121, 123 (Pilaya y Paspaya), 153, 157, 158, 163 (Larecaja), 180 (Misque), 193v, 199v, 247, 251 (Sicasica), 393 (Pacajes), 405v, 411, 412v (Omasuyo), 435v, 470, 472, 509, 523, and 566v (Cochabamba).

45. On families broken up, see R&Q1, fs. 43, 53v, 71, 99v, 109 (La Paz), 167v (Misque), 193, 199v (Sicasica), 396v, 399v, 405v (Omasuyo), 524v, and 556 (Cochabamba). On flight from ranches, see R&Q1, fs. 3v, 10, 12, 27 (La Paz), 122, 129 (Pilaya y Paspaya), 167v (Misque), 203, 229, 231 (Sicasica), 391 (Pacajes), 395v (Omasuyo), and 556v (Cochabamba). Other activities lost their Indian laborers too. See R&Q1, fs. 19v (La Paz: mail, hospital, carnesia, servants in the homes of public officials), 117 (Tomina: guards for livestock), 155 (Larecaja: gold mines), 169v ff., 180 (Misque: viniculture and convents), 203, 240 (Sicasica: haciendas), and 371 (Pacajes: convents, mail, and service in La Paz).

46. R&Q1, fs. 75 (La Paz), 94v (Sicasica), 391 (Pacajes), and 478 (Cochabamba); and R&Q2, f. 478 (Porco). See the citations for epidemics in note 38, above. These problems were compounded by the fact that many kurakas in 1689 had not been in office when the census was undertaken and were therefore unfamiliar with the way the enumeration rosters had been compiled.

47. R&Q1, fs. 16, 22, 24v, 108v (La Paz), 205v (Sicasica), 405, 413—17v (Omasuyo), 524, 529, and 530 (Cochabamba); and R&Q2, fs. 478v, 498 (Porco), 531 (Chayanta), and 583v (Carangas).

48. R&Q1, fs. 1, 81, 82, 85, 90, 93–93v (La Paz), 424v (Omasuyo), and 560v (Cochabamba); and R&Q2, fs. 528v, and 529v (Chayanta). There was, furthermore, a great deal of competition for those Indians who had been included on census rosters in more than one place: R&Q1, fs. 3v, 67–67v (La Paz), 128 (Pilaya y Paspaya), and 532 (Cochabamba); and R&Q2, f. 497v (Porco).

49. R&Q1, fs. 43 (La Paz), 155 (Larecaja), 509, 529, and 560 (Cochabamba); and R&Q2, fs. 501v (Chayanta), 586v, 597, and 600 (Carangas).

50. On attempts by kurakas to resign, see R&Q1, fs. 16v, 61, 93–93v (La Paz), 160 (Larecaja), 403v, 419 (Omasuyo), 534–534v, 536v, and 564v (Cochabamba); and R&Q2, fs. 479, 480v, 484, 485, 491 (Porco), and 503v (Chayanta). On the jailing of kurakas, see R&Q1, fs. 27, 44v, 47v, 50v, 52, 60v, 72, 83v, 84, 86, 90, 97, 98, 102, 104, 105 (La Paz), 189 (Misque), 434, 501v, 529, and 534v (Cochabamba); and R&Q2, f. 578 (Paria).

51. R&Q1, fs. 386–90 (Pacajes).

52. R&Q1, fs. 169 (the contingent from Misque ran off at the Pilcomayo river) and 433 (the group from Cochabamba fled with the money provided to them to pay their expenses while in transit). The mitayos from Porco, moreover, fled once they had arrived in Potosí (R&Q1, f. 496); and the attempted arrest and return of the runaway kurakas of Cochabamba ended in an ambush of their guards (R&Q1, fs. 569–70v).

53. R&Q1, fs. 5v (La Paz), 110–20v (Tomina), 121–121v, 123–123v (Pilaya y Paspaya), 468, and 569–70v (Cochabamba); and R&Q2, fs. 574–574v (Tarija).

54. R&Q1, fs. 153, 158 (Larecaja), and 229 (Sicasica).

55. R&Q1, fs. 153, 153v, 153v-54 (Larecaja), 193, 198, 241–241v, 247, 249, 251v, 252, 332, 334 (Sicasica), 350, 350v (Pacajes), and 472 (Cochabamba); and R&Q2, fs. 574, and 574v (Tarija).

56. Four overviews of this entire process are: (1) Archbishop Melchor Liñán y Cisneros of Lima to the crown, Lima 1 September 1692, AGI, Charcas, leg. 271, no. 6; (2) the bishop of Cuzco to the crown, Cuzco, 3 Oct. 1692, AGI, Charcas, leg. 271, no. 8; (3) the informe prepared by the same bishop for the Conde de la Monclova, Cuzco, 19 March 1691, AGI, Charcas, leg. 271, no. 8A; and (4) the Conde de Canillas (Corregidor Pedro Luis Enríquez of Potosí) to the crown, Lima, 22 December 1691, AGI, Charcas, leg. 273, no. 1.

57. See note 30, above, for the full citation for the Duque de la Palata's “Advertencias.”

58. Ibid.

59. Noted by the viceroy in his “Relación,” Los virreyes, vol. Perú 6, p. 239.

60. The Conde de la Monclova to the crown, Lima, 15 March 1690, AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 33; and the Council of the Indies' fiscal's comments on that letter, Madrid, 27 March 1693, AGI, Charcas, leg. 270, no. 33A. See as well Evans, “Census Enumeration,” p. 35; and Sánchez-Albornoz, Indios y tributos, pp. 75–77.

61. Provisión issued over the signature of the Viceroy Conde de la Monclova, Lima, 27 April 1692, ANB, MSS 575, tomo 4, fs. 279–87 (printed); another copy is AGI, Charcas, leg. 273, no 4B. The Conde's repartimiento de la mita (an eighteenth-century copy thereof) of Lima, 27 April 1692, is ANB, MSS 31, fs. 37–52. Another of the viceroy's provisions, dated Lima, 6 May 1692, details his ordinances concerning the distribution of mitayos at Potosí (ANB, MSS 31, fs. 53–64; also an eighteenth-century copy). A declaration of the Conde de la Monclova, Los Reyes, 19 July 1692, AGI, Charcas, leg. 273, no. 4A, summarizes the entire procedure. Three tomes of proceedings were sent to Madrid: (1) “Quaderno 1,” AGI, Charcas, leg. 271, last item; (2) “Quaderno 2,” AGI, Charcas, leg. 272, first item; and (3) “Quaderno 3,” AGI, Charcas, leg. 273, last item.

62. For the problems with Palata's papers, see the correspondence between his secretary, Joseph Bernal, and Antonio Ortiz de Otalora, a secretary to the Council of the Indies, from 6 January 1692 to 1 November 1692, AGI, Charcas, leg. 271, nos. 1–5 and 9–9B. For the individual opinions of the Councilors, from their deliberations on 18 January 1697, see AGI, Charcas, leg. 273, no. 19B (transcribed in Cole, “The Potosí Mita,” pp. 456–58). The Council of the Indies' response to Monclova's report of 21 October 1693 (AGI, Charcas, leg. 273, no. 10) concerning everything that had been done with regard to the mita is evident in that body's recommendation to the crown, Madrid, 1 February 1697, AGI, Charcas, leg. 273, no. 21.