Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T00:17:15.730Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Colonial Law and “Native Customs”: Indigenous Land Rights in Colonial Spanish America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2015

Tamar Herzog
Tamar Herzog*
Affiliation:
Stanford University, Stanford, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Scholars of colonial Spanish America are divided between those who cherish Spaniards for respecting indigenous land rights and those who denounce them for not having done so. For the first group, Spanish respect was enshrined in political and theological debates and in legislation and practice that from the sixteenth century asserted that natives had right to the lands they possessed before Europeans arrived. For the second group, native dispossession was a dominant feature of colonial life. Whatever the theory may have mandated, the balance of power favored non-natives by allowing them access to a wide variety of social, legal, political, economic, and cultural instruments enabling them to control the land.

Type
New School Lecture
Information
The Americas , Volume 69 , Issue 3 , January 2013 , pp. 303 - 321
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

With the publication of Tamar Herzog’s essay, The Americas is pleased to announce the launching of a new collaboration with the History Department of The New School to co-sponsor and publish its Annual Lecture in Latin American History. The series will feature lectures presented by senior historians in the field of Latin American History across an array of topics.

I would like to thank my colleague Richard White for the many conversations about indigenous peoples and their rights. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Symposium on Comparative Early Modern Legal History organized by Richard Ross and this author at the Newberry Library in Chicago and at the History Department at Harvard. I would like to thank those participating in these events, as well as in the Annual Lecture in Latin American History at the New School, for their comments and suggestions.

1. The so-called “White legend,” affirming Spanish respect for indigenous land rights is present, for example, in the introduction to Abanto, Felipe Marquez “Cédulas y provisiones sobre repartimientos de tierras,” Revista del Archivo General de la Nación del Perú 19:1 (1955), pp. 46–49;Google Scholar and Mariluz Urquijo, José María El régimen de la tierra en el derecho indiano (Buenos Aires: Editorial Perrot, 1978), pp. 24–27.Google Scholar It was based on sources such as “Vitoria on the Justice of the Conquest,” reproduced, for example, in New Iberian World: A Documentary History of the Discovery and Settlement of Latin America to the Early 17th Century, Parry, John H. and Keith, Robert G. eds. (New York: Times Books, 1984), vol. 1, p. 294.Google Scholar These questions were also treated in Pagden, Anthony “Dispossessing the Barbarian: The Language of Spanish Thomism and the Debate over the Property Rights of American Indians,” in The Languages of Political Tlieory in Early Modern Europe, Pagden, Anthony ed. (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 79–98;Google Scholar and, more recently, in Adorno, Rolcna The Polemics of Possession in Spanish American Narrative (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007). Also see Recopilación de Indias, Book 4, title 12, laws 7, 8 and 16.Google Scholar

2. Ots Capdequi, J.M. España en America. El régimen de tierras en la época colonial (Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econòmica, 1959), pp. 82, 85;Google Scholar González Rodríguez, Adolfo Luis “La pérdida de la propiedad indígena: el caso de Córdoba, 1573-1700,” Anuario de estudios americanos 47 (1990), pp. 171–198;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Stavig, Ward “Ambiguous Visions: Nature, Law, and Culture in Indigenous-Spanish Land Relations in Colonial Peru,” Hispanic American Historical Review 80:1 (2000), pp. 77–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. As long ago as 1970, Mariluz Urquijo, José María in “La propiedad en el derecho indiano,” Revista Chilena de Historia del Derecho 6 (1970), pp. 156–157,Google Scholar called our attention to the need to study these questions, namely, how Spaniards implemented in administrative and judicial proceedings the recognition of native pre-Columbian land rights.

4. This issue is treated in greater detail in Herzog, Tamar “Terres et déserts, société et sauvagerie. De la communauté en Amérique et en Castille à l’époque moderne,” Annales Histoire, Sciences sociales [hereafter Annales HSS] 62:3 (2007), pp. 507–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For older bibliographies on this issue see Medina, Alejandro Málaga “Las reducciones en el Perú (1532–1600),” Historia y Cultura 8 (1974), pp. 141–172;Google Scholar and de Solano, Francisco “Política de concentración de la población indígena: objetivos, procesos, problemas, resultados,” Revista de Indias, 35:145–146 (1976), pp. 7–29.Google Scholar

5. Martínez, Bernardo García Los pueblos de la sierra. El poder y el espacio entre los indios del norte de Puebla hasta 1700 (Mexico: Colegio de México, 1987), pp. 97–101;Google Scholar Gade, Daniel W. and Escobar, Mario “Village Settlement and The Colonial Legacy in Southern Peru,” Geographical Review 72:4 (1982), pp. 430–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Documentation regarding land can be found in the National Archives of Ecuador in Quito [hereafter ANQ] in the sections titled Cacicazgo, Tierras, Fondo Especial [FE], Casas, Indígenas and Gobierno. Additional documentation can be found in the Spanish colonial archives in Seville (Archivo General de Indias [hereafter AGI]).

7. Stavig, , “Ambiguous Visions,” pp. 87, 96.Google Scholar

8. Questionnaire submitted by don Juan Zumba, cacique de Uyumbicho, Quito, August 28, 1565, ANQ Tierras 1, exp. 1 of August 14, 1565, fols. 12r–13r, on 12v.

9. Royal provision to the corregidor of Ríobamba, Quito, August 16, 1649, ANQ Indígenas 16, exp. 2 of 2.9.1686, fols. lr–4r, on 2r. Somewhat similarly, the cacique of Saquisili (jurisdiction of Latacunga) in 1700 invoked his possession desde la gentilidad: petition of don Juanto Titufunta Llamoca, ANQ Tierras 36, exp. 29.7.1719, fol. lir. Also see the memorial of Juana Cunsi, cacica principal of Latacunga, May 8, 1665, ANQ Indígenas 8, exp. 11 of 8.5.1665; and the petition of Diego Núñez de Montesdoca, cacique of San Cristóbal de Patate, ANQ Tierras 47, exp. 1735, fols. lr–2v.

10. The situation in other Spanish American territories may have been similar: Diaz Rementería, Carlos J. “El patrimonio comunal indígena: del sistema incaico de propiedad al de derecho castellano,” in El aborigen y el derecho en el pasado y el presente, Levaggi, Abelardo ed. (Buenos Aires: Universidad del Museo Social Argentino, 1990), pp. 116–118.Google Scholar

11. Declarations of Francisco Condi and Gonzalo Guanobique, ANQ Tierras 1, exp. 1 of 14.8.1565, fols. 15r–17r.

12. Questionnaire submitted by don Juan Zumba, Quito, August 28, 1565, ANQ Tierras 1, exp. 1 of 14.8.1565, fols. 12r–13r, on 12v; and petition of Hernando de Parra on fols. 19v–20v and his witnesses on fols. 23r–25r in the same file. Legislation, however, did admit the continuation of land rights in the old site and indigenous communities often followed suit, using both the new and old lands. George Lovell, W. Conquest and Survival in Colonial Guatemala: A Historical Geography of the Cuchumatán Highlands, 1500–1821 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1992), p. 126.Google Scholar

13. The original version reads: “desde que dios hizo el pueblo de Uyumbicho siempre sus abuelos y padres del dicho don Juan Zumba y sus indios estuvieron poblados y tenían sus casas en la tierra … y tenían allí sus labranzas y después se pasaron a poblar a donde está ahora el pueblo de Uyumbicho y todavía quedaron allí en la dicha tierra sus casas y charcas y hasta ahora están allí:” Declaration of Gonzalo Guanobique, ANQ Tierras 1, exp. 1 of 14.8.1565, fol. 16v.

14. The meaning and usages of “time of gentility” (and its comparison to “times of the Moors” in Spain) are discussed in Hamann, Byron Ellsworth “Bad Christians, New Spains: Muslims, Catholics, and Native Americans in a Transatlantic World” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 2011).Google Scholar I owe Byron my discussion here.

15. Gruzinski, Serge La colonisation de l’imaginaire: sociétés indigenes et occidentalisation dans le Mexique espagnol, XVI‘-XVIW‘ siècle (Paris: Gallimard, 1988).Google Scholar

16. The original version reads: “los nombres de su gentilidad e idolatria y a todos se les ponga nombres en el bautismo cuales se acostumbran entre cristianos” and “sin que usen de los nombres antiguos y de su gentilidad … para que con eso haya mayor conocimiento de ellos y más fácil inteligencia en escribirse en los padrones y libros de bautismos con que se excusarán los daños que ha habido encubiertos en los apellidos antiguos por lo que algunos significan.” This text appears among the decisions of the Third Council of Lima (1583) and in an ordinance dated 1646. The council decision is cited by Abercrombie, Thomas Pathways of Memory and Power: Ethnography and History Among an Andean People (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1998), vol. 1, pp. 217–223 n53.Google Scholar The 1646 ordinance is cited by Carrasco, Pedro “La introducción de apellidos castellanos entre los mayas alteños,” in Historia y sociedad en el mundo de habla española. Homenaje a José Miranda, Martínez, Bernardo García, Lerner, Victoria, Lira, Andrés, Palacios, Guillermo and Vázques, Irene eds. (Mexico: Colegio de México, 1970), p. 218 n54.Google Scholar

17. The original version reads: “y olvidando los errores de sus antiguos ritos y ceremonias:” Recopilación de Indias, Book 6, title 3, law I.

18. The procurador de indios Vincente de Montesdoca, Riobamba, August 31, 1789, ANQ Indígenas 16, exp. 2 of 2.9.1686, fol. 22r. Historians have followed suit, conflating precolonial titles with “ownership at the conquest:” Taylor, William B. Landlord and Peasant in Colonial Oaxaca (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1972), p. 78.Google Scholar

19. ANQ Indígenas 6, exp. 14 of 22.3.1657. Somewhat similar were the allegations of Herrera, from Quito, May 27,1757, ANQ Cacicazgo 15, exp. 10 of 20.6.1757, fols. 3r-v. Taylor, , in Landlord and Peasant, p. 79,Google Scholar also observed that by the seventeenth century most indigenous communities had ceased invoking their precolonial titles and instead referred to Spanish postcolonial recognition of them.

20. In 1687 the Indians of Otavalo presented a decree dated 1596 that recognized their possession of their lands over the previous 80 years (since 1516). Thus the document placed their possession in pre-His-panic times (the Spanish arrived in the region in the 1530s). Yet, this fact was not openly mentioned. ANQ Indígenas 16, exp. 23 of 1.10.1687, fols. 71v–72r.

21. The cacique of Jipijaba, Quito, September 6, 1797, ANQ Tierras 76, exp. 2.8.1763, fol. 72r.

22. In 1665, the cacica of Sicoto argued that the land had been hers from the time of the Incas, some 120 years earlier (1545). However, by that date the Incas had already been defeated and Spaniards had taken over: Petition of Juana Cunsi, ANQ Indígenas 8, exp. 11 of 8.5.1665, fol. 2r.

23. ANQ Tierras 47, exp. 1735, fols. lr–v.

24. Mandamiento del capitán Martín de Ocampo, corregidor de Cuenca, Cuenca, October 2, 1606, ANQ Tierras 6, exp. 14.1.1669, fols. lv–2v.

25. The Protector de Naturales for Matías Chuscan and others, ANQ Indígenas 36, exp. 7 of 22.7.1721, fol. Ir.

26. The original version reads: “por derecho natural y común el dominio de las cosas se adquiere al primo capiente el cual por cédulas y leyes municipales de estos reinos está mandado guardar a sus pobladores y particularmente a los indios para que se les conserve la posesión de aquellas tierras que hubiesen estado ocupando sus mayores o los gentiles de quienes proceden, sin perturbar a los sucesores que hubiesen recibido la católica enseñanza de nuestra verdadera fe y la sujeción a nuestro soberano, con los recomendables privilegios que a no se hallare que hubiesen estado ocupando tierras algunas o las despoblasen los bárbaros siguiendo su ciega idolatría y huyendo el reducirse al gremio cristiano y sujeción de los católicos y gloriosos reyes de España y se poblasen otros convertidos aún que estos no hubiesen ocupado tierras algunas”: Protector de Indios, ANQ Tierras 47, exp. 1735, fol. 2v.

27. The distinction between native and Spanish land rights and the transformation of pre-Columbian rights after their recognition by Spaniards was also briefly mentioned in Argüelles, Teresa Cañedo “La desvinculación de bienes en las comunidades indígenas del sur andino (siglos XVI-XVII),” in Actas del XI Congreso Internacional de AHILA, Liverpool, September 17–22, 1996, Fisher, John ed. (Liverpool: University of Liverpool-AHILA, 1998), vol. 3, pp. 241–242.Google Scholar

28. Herzog, Tamar “Indiani e cowboys: il ruolo dell’indigeno nel diritto e nell’immaginario ispano-coloniale,” in Oltremare. Diritto e istituzione dal colonialistno all’età postocolniale, Mazzacane, Aldo ed. (Naples: Cuen, 2006), pp. 9–44.Google Scholar On indigenous customs more generally, see Diaz Rementeria, Carlos J. “La costumbre indígena en el Perú hispano,” Anuario de estudios americanos 33 (1976), pp. 193–196;Google Scholar Levene, Ricardo #x201C;El derecho consuetudinario y la doctrina de los juristas en la formación del derecho indiano,#x201D; Hispanic American Historical Review 3 (1920), pp. 144–151;Google Scholar Juan Manzano Manzano, “Las leyes y costumbres indígenas en el orden de prelación de fuentes del derecho indiano,” and Martha Norma Oliveros, “La construcción jurídica del régimen tutelar del indio,” both found in the proceedings of the I Congreso del Instituto Internacional de Historia del Derecho Indiano, Buenos Aires, October 6–11, 1966, Revista del Instituto de Historia del Derecho Ricardo Levene 18 (1967), pp. 65–71 and 105–126 respectively; and de San Segundo, Miguel Ángel González “El elemento indígena en la formación del derecho indiano,” in his El mestizaje jurídico: el derecho indiano de los indígenas(Estudios de Historia del Derecho), (Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 1995), pp. 5–6, 12, and 16–19.Google Scholar

29. The original version reads: “Ordenamos y mandamos que las leyes y buenas costumbres que antiguamente tenían los indios para su buen gobierno y policía, y sus usos y costumbres observadas y guardadas después que son cristianos y que no se encuentran con nuestra sagrada religión, ni con las leyes de este libro y las que han hecho y ordenado de nuevo se guarden y ejecuten, y siendo necesario, por la presente las aprobamos y confirmamos, con tanto que nos podamos añadir la que fuéremos servido y nos pareciere que conviene al servicio de Dios nuestro señor, y al nuestro, y a la conservación y policía cristiana de los naturales de aquellas provincias, no perjudicando a los que tienen hecho, ni a las buenas y justas costumbres y estatutos suyos.” Recopilación de Indias, Book 2, title 1, law 4.

30. Herzog, Tamar Upholding Justice: Society, State, and the Penai System in Qtiito (1650–1750), (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004), pp. 10 and 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31. Borah, Woodrow Justice by Insurance: The General Indian Court of Colonial Mexico and the Legal Aides of the Half-Real (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), pp. 3–4, 35, 49–50, and 57–58.Google Scholar Mumford, Jeremy Ravi “Litigation as Ethnography in Sixteenth-Century Peru: Polo de Ondegardo and the Mitimaes,” Hispanic American Historical Review 88:1 (2008), pp. 6 and 38,CrossRefGoogle Scholar seems to adopt both points of view, on one hand accusing Spanish lawyers of misunderstanding and prejudice and of adopting narrowly self-interested decisions and on the other agreeing that the Spanish legal system could uphold indigenous customs yet show little interest “in where and how those laws differed from the Spaniard’s own.” According to Mum-ford, a discoursive heterogeneity thus coexisted with “a conception of justice that incorporated but transcended divergent legal systems.”

32. This observation was also made by Urquijo, Mariluz El régimen de la tierra, pp. 28–31.Google Scholar

33. The original version reads: “sin que sus habitadores y naturales tuviesen entonces más que tan solamente una precaria y temporal posesión de las tierras que por los dichos monarcas se le repartían para que las labrasen y sembrasen:” de Escalona Agüero, Gaspar Gazofilacio real del Perú ([1647] La Paz: Editorial del Estado, 1941), Book II, Part II, chapt. 20, punto 1, pp. 239–240.Google Scholar In 1594, the viceroy of Peru argued that Indians were “precarios poseedores y rudos usufructaries”: ibid, punto 15, p. 252. On these issues see also Rementeria, Díaz “El patrimonio comunal indígena,” p. 110.Google Scholar

34. Martínez, Milagros “Comunidad indígena y haciendas españolas en Piura: el caso de San Francisco de Cumbicus (1645–1720),” Histórica 14:1 (1990), pp. 94–95;Google Scholar Mumford, “Litigation as Ethnography,” pp. 20–37.Google Scholar

35. “La orden que tenían los indios en suceder en las tierras y baldíos,” AGI Patronato 20 n5, R. 22, fol. 266r, identified two types of possession that would not qualify as legal possession according to Spanish standards. It further stated that because indigenous rulers—in this case the Aztec—were tyrants, they could give or take land at liberty, thus transforming the Indians de facto into precarious possessors. Similar questions with regard to the Incas were treated in Pease, Franklin “La noción de propiedad entre los Incas: una aproximación,” in Etnografìa e historia del mundo andino: continuidad y cambio (Tokyo: University of Tokyo, 1989), pp. 3–33.Google Scholar Early Spanish efforts to categorize the Incas as tyrants and to distinguish lands belonging to them from those belonging to indigenous communities and individuals were also described in Rementeria, Diaz “El patrimonio comunal indígena,” mainly on pp. 107–108 and 115.Google Scholar On the reconstruction of the indigenous past by Spaniards as part of their colonial enterprise, see Estensorro, Juan Carlos “Autorretrato del conquistador como vencido o la invención del Perù: la aparición del Inca y de sus atributos políticos en las representaciones plásticas, 1526–1548,” Colonial Latin American Review 19:1 (2010), pp. 151–205, for example, on pp. 153–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36. Petition of Hernando de Parra, ANQ Tierras 1, exp. 1 of 14.8.1565, fols. 19v–20v, which is supported by witnesses on fols. 23r–25r.

37. Petition of Andres Zumbaña in ANQ Tierras 1, exp. 1 of 14.8.1565, fol. 18r. Also see the petition of the Protector de Naturales of Cuenca, ANQ Tierras 17 exp. 19.6.1692, fol. 3r; of the protector general in the name of Antonio Amaguano and others, ANQ Cacicazgo 44, vol. 99, exp. 23.2.1732, fols. 3r–v; and the decree of Fernando Santiago Tenoco, San Juan de Toniependo, April 15, 1755, AHQ Tierras 66, exp. 29.4.1755, fols. lr–v. On these issues see also “Ordenanzas del virrey Francisco Toledo para los indios de todos los departamentos y pueblos de este reino” [1572], reproduced in “Cédulas y provisiones sobre repartimientos de tierras,” Revista del Archivo General de la Nación del Perú 19:1 (1955), pp. 46–61, mainly Ordinance 37 on pp. 51–52 and the Recopilación de Indias, Book 6, title 3.

38. “Congregation of the province of Tlanchinol,” Mexico, March 8, 1604, reproduced in Simpson, Lesley Byrd Studies in the Administration of the Indians in New Spain (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1934), p. 103;Google Scholar and Sullivan, John “Un diálogo sobre la congregación en Tlaxcala,” Colonial Latin American Review 8:1 (1999), pp. 41–48.Google Scholar Some Indians may have considered such a move from ancestral land to land granted and recognized by the Spanish advantageous. Aguirre Bcltrán, Hilda J. La congregación de Tlacotepec (1604–1606). El pueblo de indios de Tepeaca (Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, 1984), pp. 62–63;Google Scholar Ouvveneel, Arij “Altepeme and Pueblos de Indios. Some Comparative Theoretical Perspectives on the Analysis of the Colonial Indian Community,” in The Indian Community of Colonial Mexico: Fifteen Essays on Land Tenure, Corporate Organizations, Ideology and Village Politics, Ouweneel, Arij and Miller, Simon eds. (Amsterdam: CEDLA, 1990), p. 10.Google Scholar

39. That indigenous land had to be sufficient for both survival and tax payment is clear in the petition of the Protector de Indios Merchante, Quito, November 9, 1791, ANQ Cacicazgo 3, exp. 3 of 9.11.1791, fol. 3r. That initial land grants were also tied to “necessity” is clear in ANQ Indígenas 1, exp. 3 of 13.12.1597.

40. Petition of the Protector de Indios Merchante, ibid., fol. 3r; royal petition of the Protector General in the name of Antonio Amaguano, cacique of Nayon, ANQ Cacicazgo 44, vol. 99, exp. 23.2.1732, fols. 3r–v. The particular status of such lands, as well as the “right of return” were also described in de Solórzano y Pereira, Juan Política Indiana ([1648] Madrid: Compañía Ibero-Americana de Publicaciones, 1972), Book 2, chapt. XXIV, puntos 39 and 42 on pp. 379–380.Google Scholar

41. Latin American composiciones have been studied by many. See for example Pacheco, Cristina Torales “A Note on the Composiciones de Tierra in the Jurisdiction of Cholula, Puebla (1591–1757),” in The Indian community, Ouweneel, and Miller, , eds., pp. 87–102;Google Scholar and Gonzáles, Donato Amado “Reparto de tierras indígenas y la primera visita y composición general, 1591–1595,” Histórica 22:2 (1998), pp. 197–207.Google Scholar Also see Recopilación de Indias, Book 4, title 12, laws 15–21. On Castillan composiciones see Vass-berg, David E. La venta de tierras baldías. El comunitarismo agrario y la corona de Castilla durante el siglo XVI(Madrid: Servicio de Publicaciones Agrarias, 1983);Google Scholar and Novísima Recopilación, Book 7, title 13.

42. Petition of Salvador Ango Pilainla de Salazar, cacique, Otavalo, December 3, 1692, ANQ Tierras 18, exp. 15.12.1692, fol. lv. The idea that composiciones were also a means to defend indigenous land rights against abuse by Spaniards, mestizos, and mulatos was invoked in “Real instrucción de 15.10.1754,” Revista del Archivo General de la Nación del Perù 22:1 (1958), p. 440. The role of composiciones as revenue generators was defended in, for example, de Solano, Francisco “El juez de tierras y la superintendencia del beneficio y composición de tierras,” Anuario Histórico Jurídico Ecuatoriano 6 (1978), p. 350.Google Scholar

43. Petition of Juan Guaytara, cacique, Quito, March 15, 1712, ANQ Tierras 34, exp. 15.3.1712, fols. 2r“v. Also see Martínez, Milagros “Comunidad indígena y haciendas españolas,” p. 98;Google Scholar and Bonnett, Diana El protector de naturales en la Audiencia de Qjiito, siglos XVII y XVIII (Quito: FLACSO, 1992), p. 76.Google Scholar On how composiciones should have been extended to the Spanish population at large, see Ots Capde-quí, José María El regimen de la tierra en la America española durante el periodo colonial (Ciudad Trujillo: Universidad de Santo Domingo, 1946), pp. 42–78 and 108–135.Google Scholar

44. Petition of Salvador Ango Pilainla de Salazar, cacique, Otavalo, December 3, 1692; petition of Joseph Arango, cacique del pueblo de Dominguillo de Loja, ANQ Indígenas 33, exp. 26 of 12.7.1713. Quito’s composiciones were studied by de Moreno, Christiana Borchart “Composiciones de tierras en la audiencia de Quito: el valle de Tumbaco a finales del siglo XVII,” Jalirbitch fürgeschichte von staat, wirtschaft und gesellschaft lateinamerikas 17 (1980), pp. 121–155.Google Scholar

45. Auto, Pasto, December 24, 1692, ANQ FE 5, vol. 13, no. 414, fols. 62r–l 12v, on 74r.

46. The original version reads: “hay una reducción de 30 indios … que posee una porción de tierras que excede el número de los indios y a la fuerza que éstos tienen para cultivarla.” Francisco Javier Barbosa, arguing for Manuel Ventimilla, ANQ Tierras 98, exp. 11.6.1780, unnumbered page.

47. Petition of Gabriel Ardilles, ANQ Tierras 124, exp. 2.6.1797. Similarly, see “Autos sobre la denuncia de una legua de tierras citas en el pueblo de Ojiba en la provincia de Guayaquil hecha por José de Ortega,” ANQ Tierras 129, exp. 27.3.1800.

48. Witnesses presented by Joseph Alduñes, ANQ Tierras 125, exp. 23.9.1797, fols. 12r–v.

49. “Autos sobre la denuncia de una legua de tierras citas en el pueblo de Ojiba en la provincia de Guayaquil hecha por José de Ortega,” ANQ Tierras 129, exp. 27.3.1800.

50. Letter of the Guayaquil corregidor Ramón León y Pizarro, Guayaquil, December 30, 1783, ANQ Indígenas 111, exp. 20 of 30.12.1783.

51. The Protector General de Naturales for Francisco Tene Masa, cacique, ANQ Tierras 9, exp. 18.8.1678, fol. 13r.

52. Vélez, Diana Bonnet Tierra y comunidad. Un problema irresuelto. El caso del altiplano cundiboya-cense (virreinato de la Nueva Granada) 1750–1800 (Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes, 2002).Google Scholar

53. Response of Fernando de la Torre Cantillana to the allegations of the Protector de Indios in ANQ FE 9, vol. 23, no. 730, fols. 55r–62v, on 58r–v. Only on rare occasions did representatives of indigenous communities question the rule that placed the burden of proof on them. Therefore, this move by the Protector de Indios was exceptional: ANQ Tierras 47, exp. 1735, fols. 2r–2v. Here too, the rule was general and should have also been applied to Spaniards, but it was more frequently used in cases involving Indians: Solórzano y Pereira, Política Indiana, Book 1, chapt. XII, puntos 1 and 3, pp. 37–38. Need was invoked in the petition of Antonio Fuel Payupaqui, cacique of María Magdalena: ANQ Indígenas 35, exp. 18 of 1.12.1718, fol. 3r. The difficulties Indians faced in such cases is clear in ANQ Tierras 18, exp. 29.8.1692. Also see Felipe Gualip-iango, cacique, contra Estéban de Aguirre Recalde, ANQ Tierras 18, exp. 29.8.1692.

54. The original version reads: “… los sidos en que se han de formar pueblos y reducciones tengan comodidad de aguas, tierras y montes, entradas y salidas y labranzas y un ejido de una legua de largo, donde los indios puedan tener sus ganados:” Recopilación de Indias, Book 6, tide 3, law 8. Also see law 14, which repeats the same stipulation.

55. Petition of Herrera, Quito, February 9, 1762, ANQ Indígenas, exp. no. 6 of 9.2.1762; and Manuel Inocencio Parrales y Guale, cacique of Jipijapa on June 26, 1797, in ANQ Tierras 76, exp. 2.8.1763, fol. 68r. Also see the fiscal protector arguing for Joseph Pinza, Quito, May 12, 1789, in ANQ Indígenas 126, exp. 2 of 12.5.1789. Compare, for example, the allegations of Joseph Sanchez de Miranda to those of the Protector de Indios Estéban de Oláis y Echevarría, Quito, May 20,1722, ANQ Tierras 38, exp. 13.5.1722, fols, lr–v and 3r–v.

56. Locke’s treatises were studied by many. I found the following most useful: MacPherson, C.B. Tlie Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1962);Google Scholar Tully, James A Discourse on Property: John Locke and His Adversaries (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1980);CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Arneil, Barbara John Locke and America: The Defense of English Colonialism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57. Decree of Salcedo y Fuenmayor, Pasto, December 24, 1692, ANQ FE 5, vol. 13 no. 414, fols. 62r–112v, on 74r–v; and Protector de Indios Merchante, Quito, November 9, 1791, ANQ Cacicazgo 3, exp. 3 of 9.11.1791, fol. 3r.

58. Juan Valeriano de Lara, ANQ Cacicazgo 44, vol. 99, 23.2.1732.

59. The fiscal, Quito, April 18,1796, and May 29, 1797, and the judge Fernando Cuadrado y Valdene-bro on May 2, 1796, all in ANQ Tierras 76, exp. 2.8.1763, fols. 41r and 67r.

60. Petition of Joseph Sánchez de Miranda, ANQ Tierras 38, exp. 13.5.1722, fols. 3r-v; and decree of Fernando Santiago Tenoco, dated April 15, 1755, ANQ Tierras 66, exp. 29.4.1755. This accusation was also made against Indians in other regions. See for example the representative of royal interests in the viceroyalty of Peru in his informe fiscal, reproduced in “Compilación de reales cédulas, provisiones, leyes, ordenanzas, instrucciones y procedimientos sobre repartimientos y composiciones de tierra …” Revista del Archivo General de la Nación del Perú 21:1 (1957), p. 199; and the petition of Mateo de los Ríos in “Testimonio de los autos de denuncia de tierras hecha por don Mateo de los Ríos …” (1744), AGI, México 665, fol. Ir.

61. Escalona Agüero, Gazofilacio, Book II, part II, chapt. 20, punto 5, pp. 240–241, according to whom the king mandated that the Indians would maintain their lands “con atención de ser personas de la más meritorias en esta distribución, naturales de las dichas tierras y necesitar de ellas más que otros ningunos vasallos.” Solórzano y Pereira, Política Indiana, Book 2, chapt. XXIV, punto 380, p. 380, argues that the king gave these lands to Indians out of his graciousness (benignidad). In point 39 on p. 380 Solórzano compared the Indians to feudal vassals, whom lords favored in similar ways.

62. The lieutenant-corregidor of Guayaquil Josef Mexia, Guayaquil, November 30, 1784, ANQ Tierras 104, exp. 18.11.1784, fol. Ir. The image of landless Indians as vagabonds was also invoked in ANQ Tierras, exp. Ill, 16.2.1791, fol. Ir.

63. Response of Joseph Sánchez de Miranda, ANQ Tierras 38, exp. 13.5.1722, fols. 3r–4r. Such justifications were apparent elsewhere too: Stavig, “Ambitious Visions,” pp. 88–89.Google Scholar

64. Letter of the corregidor of Guayaquil Ramón León y Pizarro, Guayqauil, December 30, 1783, ANQ Indígenas 111, exp. 20 of 30.12.1783.

65. Petition of Francisco Javier Barbosa, Quito, August 29, 1801, ANQ Tierras 130, exp. 23.9.1800. Also see Herzog, “Terres et déserts.”

66. The lieutenant-corregidor of Guayaquil Josef Mexia, Guayaquil, 30.11.1784, ANQ Tierras 104, exp. 18.11.1784, fol. lv.

67. The procurador and the protector of the Indians of Tusa, ANQ Cacicazgo 3, exp. 3 of 9.11.1791, fols. 21r–23r, on 21v, and fols. 37r–38r, on 38r.

68. ANQ Tierras 68, exp. 9.8.1756 and fiscal protector arguing for Nicolás Guamán, ANQ Tierras 70, exp. 9.7.1758. According to Quarleri, Lía Rebellion y guerra en las fronteras del Plata. Guaraníes, jesuítas e imperios coloniales (Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2009), pp. 189 and 203–204,Google Scholar a similar conversation took place between the Guaraníes of Paraguay and the king in the 1750s. They attested that the mission’s lands belonged to them because they had been granted to their ancestors by God, and because these pre-Columbian rights were recognized in both legislation and governmental decrees, but the king answered that the land was royal and that the Indians had received only temporary usage rights to it, which were aimed at guaranteeing their survival.

69. The fiscal protector arguing for don Manuel Antay, Quito, May 27, 1757, ANQ Cacicazgo 15, exp. 10 of 20.6.1757, fol. 3r.

70. The original version reads: “repartiendo a los indios lo que buenamente hubieren menester para que tengan con qué labrar y hacer sus sementeras y crianzas confirmándoles en lo que tienen de presente y dándoles de nuevo lo que les fuere necesario: Cédula real de 1591, reproduced in de Solano, Francisco “El régimen de tierras y la significación de la composición de 1591,” Revista de la Facultad de Derecho de México 26:101–2 (1976), p. 661.Google Scholar Part of this cédula was also reproduced in Recopilación de Indias, Book 4, title 12, law 14. Similar instructions were given by the president of the audiencia of Guatemala in 1598 to the officials overseeing land distribution: “Instrucciones del presidente de la audiencia de Guatemala Alonso Criado de Castilla al comisario de tierras,” Guatemala, December 17, 1598; also reproduced in Solano is“El régimen de tierras y la significación,” pp. 668–669. The claim that “necessity” would benefit, rather than dispossess Indians, was implied in “Capítulo de carta que su majestad escribió al virrey del Perú,” Madrid, June 21, 1595, reproduced in “Compilación de reales cédulas, provisiones, leyes, ordenanzas,”pp. 153–154. That “necessity” was not contradictory to maintaining indigenous rights was upheld in “Instrucciones dadas por el licenciado Gonzalo Ramírez de Vaquedano,” Lima, , December 3, 1710, reproduced in Revista del Archivo General de la Nación del Perú 21:2 (1957), pp. 444–445.Google Scholar

71. “Ordenanzas del virrey Francisco Toledo para los indios de todos los departamentos y pueblos de este reino,” 1572, reproduced in “Cédulas y provisiones sobre repartimientos de tierras,” pp. 50–61, mainly ordinance 30, on pp. 55–57. Rementeria, Díaz “El patrimonio comunal indígena,” pp. 109–110,Google Scholar also insists on the relationship between ensuring the payment of the tax and land distribution.

72. Similar questions were treated in Herzog, Tamar “Nombres y apellidos: ¡Cómo se llamaban las personas en Castilla e Hispanoamérica durante la época moderna?” Jahrbuch für Geschichte von Staat, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Lateinamerikas 44 (2007), pp. 1–36.Google Scholar

73. Pagden, Anthony “The Struggle for Legitimacy and the Image of Empire in the Atlantic to c. 1700,” in The Origins of Empire: British Overseas Enterprise to the Close of the Seventeenth Century, Canny, Nicholas ed. (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 41;Google Scholar and Seed, Patricia American Pentimento: The Invention of Indians and the Pursuit of Riches (Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 2001), p. 72.Google Scholar

74. One of the allegations made by the heirs of Columbus was that he deserved compensation not only because he had been promised many things, but also because of his industry and hard work (por su industria e trabajo): Gallo, Alfonso García “El título jurídico de los reyes de España sobre las Indias en los pleitos colombinos,” Memoria del IV Congreso de Historia del Derecho Indiano (Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1976), p. 149.Google Scholar Solórzano y Pereira agreed: see his Política Indiana, Book 1, chapt. IX, points 13 and 18–28, on pp. 90–96.

75. Locke’s theory in his Five Treatises on Government, for example, was based on the assumption that American Indians did not exercise agricultural pursuits. Nonetheless, contemporaries (and Locke himself) may have known that many of them did. Washburn, Wilcomb E. “The Moral and Legal Justifications for Dispossessing the Indians,” in Seventeenth-Century America: Essays in Colonial History, Smith, James Morton ed. (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1959), pp. 23–24;Google Scholar Jacobs, Wilbur R. Dispossessing the American Indian: Indians and Whites on the Colonial Frontier (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1972), p. 111;Google Scholar and O’Brien, Jean M. Dispossession by Degrees: Indian Land and Identity in Natick, Massachusetts, 1650–1790(Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 6–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On how Locke selected the information he used see Arneil, John Locke, p. 16.Google Scholar