Robins - Genocide and the Great Rebellion

7/27/2019 Robins - Genocide and the Great Rebellion

1/26

Genocide and the Great Rebellion of17801782 in Peru and Upper Peru

1

NICHOLAS ROBINS

I. Introduction

On February 25, 1781, the Indian rebellion that had engulfed the western part ofpresent day Bolivia ignited in and consumed the village of Tapacari, forty-twomiles to the west of the town of Cochabamba. The events there were verysimilar to those which affected the entire region, and reflected what in essencehad become the native formula for eliminating their enemies. With accumulatedresentments against priest, curaca (local Indian chief) and Spaniard alike, theIndian Tomas Flores gathered two thousand natives from the surrounding villages

of Paria, Corque and Tapacari, and began to mass on Tapacari on February 21,1781.2

After spending three days killing curacas and looting in the surrounding area, onFebruary 25 the rebels stormed the town. By this time, over four hundred loyalistshad sought refuge and barricaded themselves in the church. After killing the fewnon-Indians they found in the town, the rebels overran the temple as mass wasbeing held, killing the refugees in the altars, choir and tower until not a manwas left.3 One of the few survivors would later report there was not a place. . . in all of the temple where they did not kill people such that there were notonly streams of blood on the ground, but . . . even on the . . . altars [which] werebathed in the blood that flowed from those who were beheaded on top of

them.4 Another recalled that many of the Indians when they beheaded them. . . drank the blood of the Spaniards, while Indian men and women dancedover and whipped the naked corpses.5

Many priests were killed, one of whom was later discovered in the sacristysheltered by and holding onto the monstrance.6 In the midst of this slaughter,a priest tried to calm the mob by holding a monstrance, while a servant clung tohim for protection. The Indians grabbed the servant, throwing him at the priestand knocking both of them to the ground where they were both killed. Afterwardsthe rebels held up the bloodied and broken monstrance in triumph. That and theremaining religious symbols and images were carried from the church to the

plaza where they were set afire.7

Journal of Genocide Research (2005), 7(3),September, 351 375

ISSN 1462 3528 i t ISSN 1469 9494 li =05=030351 25 # 2005 R h N t k i G id St di


2/26

One group of Indians found a Spaniard hiding in the altar along with his wifeand six sons. He was brought to his house and told that if he wanted to survivehe must execute all of his children in front of his spouse. As he refused, his

wife was forced to watch in horror as he and her children were executed beforeher eyes.8 Other rebels found satisfaction in casting Spanish, Creole andMestizo (of mixed Spanish and Indian origin) children from the top of thechurch tower.9 After having their offspring, including babies, executed in frontof them, the surviving white women were made to don Indian dress, chew cocaand locked up in the convent. Many were beheaded over the next two days,while about fifty others were kept as prisoners, made to dance over the corpsesand suffered hard servitude and slavery.10 Despite the fact that they killed onthe basis of race, these rebels acclaimed the ethnically tolerant Tupac Amaruas their leader whose portrait the Indians have taken out, and whom they call

their King and Redeemer.11

When the Spanish took back the town on March3, they found much material for punishment, in addition to three mass gravesin which the Indians had planned to bury their female captives alive that day.12

Not far away, in San Pedro de Buenavista, a similar scene was repeated in earlyMarch. On March 5, the Spanish and their allies retreated to the church as theIndians began to occupy the town. For the next three days the tired and thirsty loy-alists resisted them, shooting their few firearms from the church and adjoiningcemetery while being assailed by a seemingly unlimited number of rocks. OnFriday, March 9, hearing reports of a relief column advancing from Cochabamba,the Indians decided to try to overrun their enemy.13 The defenders, firing blunder-

busses from the church tower, at first seemed to be repelling the assault.

14

Soonhowever, their hopes were crushed as two thousand Indians from the town ofMoscari arrived. Having been summoned in the name of Tupac Amaru by thefeared rebel leader Simon Castillo, they were led by Marcos Colque and immedi-ately turned the tide to the Indians favor.15 Soon so many stones rained upon thechurch that the guns were silenced and the roof in tatters. As the Indians tried tobreak down the door, the local priest, Father Herrera, begged pardon for thoseinside. When the rebels replied that they intended to spare no one, the refugeeslost all hope. Opening the church doors, they hand[ed] themselves over to thearms of death.16

Inside the church and in the adjoining plaza and cemetery, the rebels killed every

man, woman, and child in the village with the exception of a few women kept asIndian captives. Such was the fury of the attack that babies were ripped fromtheir mothers arms and beaten against the ground, fetuses ripped from thewomb, and women abused before and after death. Some rebels even knew theirvictims personally, as did the Indian Josef Daga who clubbed to death his employer,hacienda (agricultural estate) owner Antonio Carbajal. By the time they were fin-ished, they had destroyed the church, leaving not a wall nor altarpiece standing.17

While sacred articles of temporal value such as silver and jewels were looted, allother religious images were stripped and then broken to pieces.

These events were a small, but archetypal, part of the Great Rebellion, which

engulfed Peru and Upper Peru (present day Bolivia) in 17801782 and presented

NICHOLAS ROBINS

352


3/26

the greatest challenge to Spanish rule in South America prior to the Wars ofIndependence. What is not often recognized, however, is that many participantsin the rebellion sought much more than the removal of Spanish political authority

from the region. The insurrection reflected not only millennial aspirations, but alsoembodied a genocidal tendency which sought the extirpation of Spanish blood andculture from the region. Like many genocidal movements, not all rebels wereinspired by millennial visions and gripped by genocidal impulses, but manywere and many others were coerced into enacting their program. If the GreatRebellion was a rope, genocide and millennialism were clearly among its strands.

The genocidal elements, so central to understanding the insurgency, have beenlargely overlooked in the historiography of the movement. Historians have for themost part based their studies on the formal statements and depositions of majorinsurgent leaders, rather than the actions of the rebels in the field.18 As this

essay will demonstrate, leaders such as Tupac Amaru and Tomas Catari wereconsiderably more moderate and racially tolerant than their loosely confederatedfollowers in Upper Peru. An over-reliance on the leaders statementsoftendesigned to win Creole support or mollify the Spanishhas fundamentally dis-torted our understanding of the rebellion and exaggerated the tenuous authoritythat these leaders possessed.

Much of the primary documentation for this study comes from the GeneralArchive of the Indies in Seville and the National Archive of Bolivia, in Sucre.As with all sources, it is important to consider their possible biases, especiallywhen exploring the genocidal character of the insurrection. Certainly one could

argue that the loyalists sought to inspire fear, and subsequently unity, amongthe non-Indian population by stressing this aspect of the rebellion. This doesnot, however, appear to have occurred to a significant extent, and severalfactors indicate that the sources only needed to report events, and not exaggeratethem, to indicate the genocidal tendency of the insurrection.

First, Spanish and Creole contemporaries often explicitly and self-consciouslyunderstated, not exaggerated, this aspect of the insurrection. Frequently, terribleevents are simply glossed over as being unspeakable deeds that cause horroreven in the imagination, or outrages which the pen is horrified to repeat, or some-thing which horrifies the tongue or scandalizes the ears or to say or hear.19 Suchreticence veils the nature of this war rather than exaggerating its racial nature.

Second, not all of the sources which indicate the genocidal nature of this insur-rection come from non-Indians. Indeed, Indian confessions are an importantsource of information on the rebellion. While their value may be attenuated bythe fact that they were often extracted under force, they nevertheless shed lighton Indian goals. One would expect that most Indians would claim to have beenforcibly inducted into the rebel ranks and would also understate their objectives.Not only did many rebels claim to have been conscripted, but Spanish officialsrecognized that such claims were sometimes true.20 Indian confessions are also,however, frequently explicit as to the genocidal nature of the rebellion. Interro-gation was in fact an important means of gathering reliable information about

the movement and facilitated the royalist victory.

GENOCIDE AND THE GREAT REBELLION OF 17801782

353


4/26

Third, all major works on the rebellion have worked with largely the same data,and there is widespread agreement in the literature concerning the course of events.Often, as in the case of Oruro, two sources, one sympathetic to the rebels and

another opposing them, give almost identical descriptions of events.21 Where thepresent work differs, however, is in the analysis of these events.

Finally, genocide is consistent with the entire pattern of actions which charac-terized the rebellion. Abolishing tribute, the mita (labor levies) and ecclesiasticaltaxes as well as insisting that all people wear exclusively Indian dress, chew cocaand greet each other in the native tongue does more than suggest that the Indianssimply wanted adjustments in the fiscal and labor structure of colonial society. Thegenocidal tendency is not only fully consistent with other Indian actions but alsohelps to explain their purpose.

II. Overview of the Great Rebellion of 1780 1782

The Great Rebellion of 17801782 was a loosely confederated series of uprisingsagainst the Spanish Crown and its supporters centered in Peru and Upper Perubetween August, 1780, and January, 1782. While a series of new taxes and thelegalization and expansion of the reparto (forced distribution of goods), beginningin 1756 were important factors which precipitated the regional uprising, itreflected deep-rooted millennial hopes and prophecies concerning the return ofnative rule to the land.22 The uprising essentially consisted of two stages, whichtook place in Upper Peru and Peru respectively.

In late August, 1780, an Indian by the name of Tomas Catari led an uprisingcentered in the province of Chayanta, Upper Peru. A popular and uneducatedcuraca (Indian chief), in the village of Macha, in 1778 he had been denied hispost on the orders of the corregidor (local Spanish governor), Joaqun Alos. Inthe same year, the tenaciously legalistic Catari journeyed over 1,500 miles byfoot to the vice regal seat in Buenos Aires to press his claim as curaca, arrivingthere without poncho, hat, shirt or shoes.23 Unsuccessful in his petition, uponhis return to Macha in April of 1779 he nevertheless claimed to have receivedthe support of Charles III, assumed the role of curaca and unilaterally reducedtribute levels. These acts resulted in his capture and imprisonment by royal autho-rities, an act that was to be replayed several times as his supporters repeatedly

liberated him.24 The last such liberation was effected when his supporters capturedCorregidor Alos and subsequently exchanged him for Catari, whom royalauthorities confirmed as curaca as part of the exchange. In the name of theking, Catari not only upheld the reduced tribute levels, but also abolished thereparto, and ordered that many curacas in the provinces of Chayanta, Yamparaezand Paria be replaced or killed.25

Inspired by and exaggerating his example, his supporters claimed that hehad also ordered the abolition of the mita, tribute and civil and ecclesiasticaltaxes. Gathering adherents, they roamed Chayanta and the surroundingprovinces, killing as many non-Indians and their supporters as they could

find.26

After the capture and execution of Tomas Catari in January, 1781, his

NICHOLAS ROBINS

354


5/26

brothers Damaso and Nicolas continued the rebellion until their capture inMarch, 1781.27

In neighboring Peru, the rebellion was initially led by Jose Gabriel Condorcanqui

Tupac Amaru, the curaca of the Indian village of Tinta. A wealthy and educateddescendant of the last Inca leader who was executed in 1572, in 1780 he had unsuc-cessfully litigated to reduce the burdens placed upon his people by colonial auth-orities. After capturing and executing the corregidor of Tinta on November 10,1780, Tupac Amaru rapidly built a large following and waged war against thecrown in the region of Cuzco from November, 1780, until March, 1781, when healso was captured.28 The capture and ensuing execution of Tupac Amaru did notdampen the rebellion, but rather further incited and radicalized it. His cousin,Diego Cristobal Tupac Amaru, subsequently led the uprising in the regions ofCuzco and Puno, Peru, while Andres Tupac Amaru and Miguel Bastidas Tupac

Amaru, respectively the nephew and cousin of the original leader, operated in theregion of La Paz, Upper Peru.

Also in the region of La Paz, an itinerant trader of coca leaves by the nameof Julian Apasa rose up against the Spanish. Adopting the name Tupac Catariin honor of both Tupac Amaru and Tomas Catari, the messianic Catari laidsiege to La Paz from March 14 until June 30, 1781, when it was lifted bySpanish-led forces. The loyalist relief was short lived, however, and plagued bydissension and desertions, they were obliged to withdraw in early August.Catari immediately resumed the siege in the company of the Amaristas untilOctober 15, 1781, when it was definitively broken by forces under Jose de

Resegun. The capture and subsequent execution of Tupac Catari turned the tideagainst the rebels, causing increasing numbers to sue for peace and turn in theirleaders. By January, 1782, the Spanish had reestablished their dominance in theregion, a fact symbolized by the signing of the Peace of Sicuani by the survivingAmarista leaders.29

III. Millennialism and genocide in Upper Peru

Tupac Catari, Tupac Amaru and Tomas Catari knew the burdens, frustrations andhopes of their people well. What the latter two perhaps did not know was howdeeply these feelings ran, how repressed they were, and how, once untapped,

they would be expressed in a collective, genocidal outburst. Both were Catholicreformists at heart, hoping to eliminate abuses in a system, and in the case ofTupac Amaru, to crown himself Inca king and rule the realm that had beenusurped from his ancestors.

Tomas Catari, illiterate and speaking only Aymara, continued to recognize theSpanish king Charles III and act in what he saw as the royal interest. Catari nevertold his followers not to pay tribute, but rather ordered a reduction in the tribute byabout one-third. He also expressed his willingness to continue paying sales taxesand fulfilling mita service, though he did request an end to the reparto. The docu-ments give no indication that he promised his followers lands, riches or an end to

Catholicism. Overall, his goals sought the reform of a system, not its extinction.


355


6/26

It was only in the hands of his followers and successors that the objectives weremagnified and assumed revolutionary proportions.30

Much the same is true concerning Tupac Amaru. He consistently sought to craft

a multi-ethnic alliance of Creoles, Mestizos, Negroes and Indians against theSpaniards. To entice Creoles to his side, he assured the safety of their lands inthe new order if they supported him and also attempted to minimize looting oftheir property. Such prohibitions of brigandage not only were largely ineffective,but also cost him support among Indians.31 While calling for an end to corregidorsand the dreaded reparto, he expressed his intent to preserve the royal minerals taxes,as well as tribute and ecclesiastical dues.32 This latter goal reflects his deeplyCatholic nature. Educated by the Jesuits in Cuzco, he visited priests and attendedmass during his campaigns.33 The Incas conservatism was also expressed in hiselitist leadership circle which consisted exclusively of Creoles, Mestizos and kin.34

Both, however, saw events rapidly escape their control and exceed their goals, asthose who operated in their name began a rampage of killing non-Indians and theirsympathizers, desecrating churches, and uprooting the system that had oppressedthem for so long. Tupac Catari, on the other hand, much more closely representedthe urge of the Indians to cleanse their society of non-native culture and blood,bluntly stating that he sought to shake off this intolerable yoke and to finishoff everyone with the objective that there will not [even] be Mestizos.35

The widespread rebel abolition of tribute, the mita and ecclesiastical taxes, aswell as their insistence that all people wear exclusively Indian dress, chew cocaand greet each other in the native tongue, both reflected and encouraged the gen-

ocidal urge. Likewise, the consistent violation of church sanctuary, massacresinside temples and the widespread destruction of religious articles not only ridthem of their oppressors, but, as Szeminski notes, showed that the native godswere once again ascendant over Kay Pacha, this world.36 As one Indian shoutedwhile killing a Spaniard in Caylloma, The time of mercy is finished, there areno more sacraments nor God with any power.37 This campaign of extirpationwas not happening in a vacuum, but rather had been promised by legends, andexpected, for some time. The pachacuti (cataclysm) not only heralded the endof the time cycle of Spanish temporal and spiritual rule, but also was evidenceof divine assistance for their undertaking. In addition, it would usher in a newepoch for the Indians; one that would be as harmonious in existence as it was

violent in creation. The rebels became channels of this higher, inexorable, will,and their actions became one with the pachacuti itself. Genocide was inherentto, and in the eyes of many Indians, necessary for, the creation of this new order.

1. Millennialism as a context for genocide

The rebellion in Upper Peru was laden with millennial and nativistic character-istics. Millennial movements offer a promise of collective salvation from hardshipand the birth of a perfect new order. The convulsion of the millennial movementitself evidences the imminence of the utopia which, though experienced on earth,

is brought about with divine intervention.38

Thus, with the help of a charismatic

NICHOLAS ROBINS

356


7/26

leader, the chiliasts seek to create a simultaneously sacred and profaneparadise.39 In the case of Upper Peru, it had strongly nativistic qualities as itwas a conscious, organized attempt on the part of a societys members to

revive or perpetuate selected aspects of its culture.40 Within this context, geno-cide can become an extension of the extirpatory impulse of millennial and nativis-tic movements. As Ralph Linton notes, while participants in such movements seekto revive many aspects of their own culture, they almost invariably incorporatemany elements of the alien culture into their vision of the future.41

Leadership is crucial for both millennial and nativistic movements.42 Theleader can be either the messiah him or herself, or a prophet who announces thecoming of the expected savior or utopia.43 In either case, the leader exhibits char-ismatic qualities which cause their adepts to treat them as endowed with super-natural, superhuman or at least specifically exceptional powers and qualities.44

In order to retain this appeal, the leader must deliver at least somewhat on theexpectations of their followers.45 The expectations, and especially perceptions,of the followers are crucial here. Indeed, what is more important than theactions or promises of the leader is that which is imputed to him or her or per-ceived by his or her adherents.

Although the conquest destroyed direct indigenous rule, it did not destroy thecollective memory of it nor the hope of its return. This hope gave rise to numerousprophecies concerning the return of native rule which circulated widely among theIndians in this region. Chief among these was that of Inkarr, the Andean creatordeity who would liberate the indigenous race from colonial servitude and preside

over a utopian epoch of restored native rule. This hero-saviors arrival would beheralded by a pachacuti, or cataclysm, out of which the new order wouldspring.46 This legend reflects the Andean cyclical concept of time; one that ispunctuated by destruction and regeneration, and which was flourishing by the1750s in both Quechua and Aymara-speaking regions.47 While the pachacuti isperceived to be cyclical, it is important to note that this does not imply immutablyeternal repetition. Given its limited inclusion of elements of the alien society intoits vision of the future, the cycle is more akin to a spiral, returning largely to itspoint of origin while retaining vestiges of the alien society.48 This prophecy ofInkarr was complemented by the popular belief that Tupac Amaru I, the last ofthe leaders who was executed in 1572, was reputedly slowly regenerating in his

grave and preparing for his imminent return. Tupac Amaru, a descendent ofTupac Amaru I, and also Tomas Catari and Tupac Catari, were sensitive to thepower of these legends of sleeping emperors, and skillfully used them to theiradvantage.49

Christian prophecies concerning the return of indigenous rule supplementedand reinforced these legends. According to Saint Francis Solano (15491610)and Saint Rose of Lima (15861617), Lima would one day be destroyed bytidal waves which would spare only the native areas. Famine, plague and chaoswould ensue, and out of this would arise a new, Catholic, native rule.50 Such pro-phesies would have considerable appeal to those who harbored an apocalyptic

worldview and who hoped for the demise of the Spaniards.


357


8/26

The role of prophecy in sparking and sustaining the rebellion in Upper Peru alsoemerges in the accounts of those who witnessed and survived it. CommandantIgnacio Flores, having personally led the suppression of much of the rebellion

in the region, noted that the Indians of Paria and the surrounding provinces hada strong devotion to their Incas.51 A contemporary in Oruro asserted that animportant cause of the rebellion was the Indian memory of their previouskings.52 The significance of such memories was not lost on the Council of theIndies, which in 1782 noted that the Indians in Peru had sought to conservethe memory of their ancient Pagan Kings.53 In the town of Oruro, one Europeannoted that the Indians preserved their prophetic memories as Judaism did thecoming of the Messiah. He also observed that, for the Indians, with the outbreakof the rebellion, the day they were waiting for had arrived, and the Sun had . . .come out for them.54

One person who had plenty of time to observe the rebels was Josef AntonioCervantes, a Franciscan priest who was captured by the rebels in Aullagas inJanuary, 1781, and held until April of that year. During his captivity he was inthe company of Indians from the villages of Poopo, Paria, Sorasora and Challapatawho were under the command of Santos Mamani, the leader of the siege of Oruro.Not only did the rebels under Mamani believe that Tupac Amaru would arrive inthe region any day, but Mamani asked Cervantes if he did not know that the timehad arrived in which the Indians would be alleviated and the Spaniards andCreoles would be annihilated.55 The use of the phrase the time has arrivedsuggests that his belief was based upon some prophecy, and Mamanis asking if

the priest did not know about it suggests that it was common knowledgeamong the rebels.Szeminski recognizes the role of prophecy when he notes that Tupac Amaru

asserted that the time had already come . . . to reintroduce the order destroyedby the Europeans . . . [and] to put an end to all of them.56 Indeed, one prisonerof the Inca stated that the rebel claimed that there had come the time of Sta.Rosas prophecy when the kingdom would return to the hand of its previouspossessors.57 During the siege of La Paz, the captive priest Matas de la Bordarecalled that the secretary of Tupac Catari wrote that it was already time thatthey fulfill the prophecies . . . which he also explained to the Indians in theirlanguage so that they would not dismay in the business of winning the city.58

Tupac Catari also referred to the prophesies about which this kingdom wouldreturn to be theirs.59 In one letter he expressed his conviction that everythingwill return to its owner, as have predicted first Santa Teresa to San Ignacio deLoyola [that] what belonged to the Inca King would be returned to him.60 Thisstatement probably erroneously refers to the prophesy of Saint Rose of Limawhich foresees the return of the realm to native rule. Borda also heard thatCatari told his lieutenants that the time had been completed to fulfill the prophecythat the kingdom would return to be theirs.61 The priest added that the Indiansrevolved exactly under the hope which was suggested to them by those leaders.62

Native eschatological expectations not only united the rebels but also imbued the

most prominent insurgent leaders with strong charismatic qualities. They possessed

NICHOLAS ROBINS

358


9/26

special powers and a special truththat of knowing of and enabling the rebirth ofindigenous rule and the beginning of a new time cycle. In addition, they werestrengthened by their perception of the collective will and newfound power of

their deities and the inexorable force of history.63 Tupac Amaru enhanced his char-ismatic appeal by claiming to act with Gods grace and emphasizing his Incalineage.64 The Quechua word Amaru, like Catari in Aymara, translates as resplen-dent serpent. Not only did the Incas associate heroes with serpents, but the namealso refers to a prophecy of the resurrection of the huacas (minor deities) whowould rise up and expel the Spanish. In addition, the name capitalized on thelegend that his ancestor, Tupac Amaru I, would return as Inkarr.65 Such was hisappeal that people often kneeled in his presence.66

Concerning the charismatic qualities of Tomas Catari, Hidalgo Lehunde arguesthat this at least partially resulted from his numerous escapes from Spanish capti-

vity which led to an aura of unconquorability around him.67

He was welcomed as amessiah after being confirmed as curaca, and the Indians called him sometimesyour highness and others your excellency.68 Another observer in Macha notedthat the Indians look upon him with distinction.69 In his confession, NicolasCatari noted that the Indians venerated [Tomas Catari] as a superior, but hewould not admit those respects.70 Another rebel from Sacaca said that TomasCoca, who recruited and conscripted for Catari in the area, publicly claimedthat Tomas would sit on a seat with a red cape calling himself king.71

Corregidor Bodega lamented that not only did Tomas Catari call himself kingand other divine names but that the Indians viewed him as the oracle to whom

[they] consult their doubts and questions and look at him as the Redeemer of hispeople.72 Whether or not Tomas Catari made such claims is unclear. What wasmore important, however, is that his adherents perceived him in this mannerand acted accordingly. His brother, Damaso Catari, also appears to have perceivedhimself the beneficiary of divine aid, and capable of prosecuting the rebellioneven if he perished. In a confrontation with Joaqun Alos on August 26, 1780,he challenged the corregidor to Kill me now so that I may go to the Sun andgive my orders.73

Popular perceptions of the immortality of rebel leaders not only reinforced theircharismatic nature but also softened the effect of their death on the rebels. Visita-dor (a royal inspector) General Jose Antonio Areche noted that many Indians

believed the rebel [Tupac Amaru] to be immortal, adding that among themany reasons he was beheaded was to dispel such beliefs.74 In addition, manyof the supporters of Tomas Catari believed that he had either not died or hadbeen resurrected. When Corregidor Bodega went to the village of Challapata onhis penultimate attempt to collect tribute, he found the Indians there unwillingto believe that Tomas Catari had indeed perished. So prevalent were theserumors of Tomas resurrection that his brother Damaso journeyed to Quilaquilato investigate them.75

We should note that rebel leaders were not the only ones who were believed tobe immortal; such powers were in many cases seen to extend to the mass of rebels.

Just to the east of Oruro in the province of Cochabamba, one observer noted that


359


10/26

the Indians condemned to death came to the gallows with the same presence ofspirit that [they bring] to one of their feasts.76 Another reflected that if in othercircumstances it was a sad spectacle to see such a rigorous execution, here it was

reduced to fun and pastime. He added that there were those who at the foot of thegallows were eating . . . this was the effect of the persuasion which the rebel TupaAmaro gave them that they would always resuscitate.77 Campbell argues thatTupac Amaru also claimed that he would resurrect fallen followers three daysafter his coronation in Cuzco, while Szeminski states that Tupac Catari said thatthe Inca would revive the fallen five days after his crowning, symbolizing theadvent of the new epoch.78

Prominent leaders such as Tupac Amaru, Tomas Catari and Tupac Catari werenot the only charismatic leaders in the rebellion. The supporters of Simon Castillo,who led the assault on San Pedro de Buenavista, also believed that he possessed

special abilities. One observer noted that the Indians venerate him [and] thereis nothing that he says which is not the Gospel while another stated that he pro-mised his followers that he would remedy everything and put it in order as absol-ute master of these places.79 In the provinces of Lipes and Chichas, Pedro de laCruz Condori was also held in great esteem by his followers. One witness notedthat the Indians have so much veneration for him that they kneel and prostratethemselves on the ground when they see him.80

The native attitude towards Catholicism and its priests underscores the degreeto which the rebels believed that Indian gods were ascendant, and the Catholic godwas correspondingly weakened. The syncretic Catholicism which had long

prevailed among the Indians recognized the dominance of the Christian god,but this did not mean that the native gods were entirely powerless. Just as the con-quest had reordered the native universe, now another pachacuti reflected the resur-gent power of the native gods. As a result, the uprising allowed a reformulation ofChristianity which involved significant changes among the relations betweennative and Christian gods.81

After Tomas Catari perished on January 15, 1781, the rebellion began to radica-lize rapidly and in many places what respect remained for Christianity faltered andthen collapsed. In some cases, Indians continued to honor the sanctuary of churchesand were responsive to the pleas of priests; such as in the villages of Palca, Ocuriand Pintatora.82 In other towns such as Challapata, however, the Indians ignored

the priests appeals for calm, attempted to break open the church door and threa-tened to burn the church to the ground to execute the corregidor. When theSpaniard exited the church clinging to the priest and monstrance, the Indianstore him away and then executed him; thus having violated the sanctity and sanc-tuary of both priest and church.83 By February, churches, as well as monstrances,crucifixes and the like, no longer afforded the least protection as shown by thesanguinary events of Oruro, San Pedro de Buenavista, Tapacari, Yura, Colcha,Palca, Tarata and other towns in the region where thousands of individuals weremassacred and mutilated in churches.84 This reflected an increasing beliefamong rebels in different areas that the New Sun had risen, and a new epoch

begun. As a result the power of the priests and their God had been severely

NICHOLAS ROBINS

360


11/26

reduced, although it had not yet been totally eliminated.85 In their eyes, theChristian god was down, but not out.

2. Millennialism and genocide

To many rebels, central to the creation of the new, native, society was the elimin-ation of Spaniards, Creoles, Mestizos and their allies. It is here that the rebellionwent beyond a simple millennial movement and took on its genocidal hue. Notonly were those with light skin to be killed, but anyone who had adopted Europeancultural characteristics such as clothing, lifestyle, etc. Thus, being white had anethnic as well as racial component, and could include a Mestizo or Indian who wasconsidered a spiritual Spaniard by virtue of their being dressed like or havingcooperated with their overlords. This included, but was by no means limited to,

curacas. Given the place of Spanish and Creoles in the colonial hierarchy, it isnot surprising that wealth or certain occupations, such as being a mine owner orhacendado, were also associated with being white.86

Although Spaniard, Creole and Mestizo were keenly aware of the differencesamong one another, the rebels paid little attention to such casuistry and notedonly their similarity: they were not Indians, either biologically or often culturally.A white, whether born in Spain or the New World, was often considered by themas a Spaniard.87 In addition, in the heat of battle race was the simplest means ofdistinguishing exploiters from exploited. Such race-based killing was the norm,cultural extirpation became genocide, and put the masses increasingly at odds

with their popular, though distant and ever more nominal, leader, Tupac Amaru.The exterminatory impulse also highlights the confederational nature of the upris-ing: despite the prominence of titular leaders, historiographical and otherwise, therebellion was in the end highly decentralized, and was led and prosecuted at thefield level by Indians who were determined to destroy the colonial system andits agents.

When rebellion engulfed Chayanta and the surrounding provinces in August,1780, curacas, many of whom were Mestizos, were the initial focus of rebelhostility. A major cause of this was the expansion of the reparto following its lega-lization in 1751 and the increasing use by corregidors of Mestizo curacas. Thesechiefs were increasingly appointed on the basis of their pliability in preference to

hereditary chiefs who often had a greater sense of obligation and traditional reci-procity towards their community.88 The execution of the curaca of Macha, BlasBernal, on August 6, 1780, unleashed a wave of repressed Indian antagonismtowards curacas in the region. In Chayanta, like many provinces, almost everychief of an Indian village was a Mestizo, the exceptions being the villages ofAcacio, Sacaca and Moscari.89

Soon, Indians literally roamed the area in search of curacas and their relatives,laying siege to towns whose populations they would later decimate, such asAullagas, Colcha, Tinquipaya, Tapacari and San Pedro de Buenavista. It is alsointeresting to note that, with varying degrees of success, Tomas Catari supported

the efforts of his priest, Father Gregorio Merlos, to convince the Indians to spare


361


12/26

the many captive curacas and their family members that the rebels brought toMacha for judgment. Catari, like Tupac Amaru, was more conservative than hisfollowers and appears to have sought to avoid a further escalation of hostilities.90

Soon rebel ire went beyond the curacas and their families and took a decidedlygenocidal turn. One observer noted that after the freedom of Tomas Catari in lateAugust, 1780, his adepts began to kill the Spaniards [and] Mestizos.91 Theregent of the audiencia (an administrative/judicial body) of La Plata attributedto orders of Tupac Amaru the fact that the Indians in Upper Peru were killingas many Spaniards and Mestizos as they could get their hands on, irrespectiveof whether they held political office.92

In October, 1780, the Corregidor of the province of Paria, Manuel de Bodega,complained that the Indians were killing any Spaniard and cholo (HispanicizedIndian) that they find in the towns . . . so that there will be no person to subject

them.93

In the town of Tolapampa, in the province of Porco which neighborsParia, a rebel read an edict reputedly issued by Nicolas Catari ordering theIndians to kill all corregidors, priests, miners, Spaniards and Mestizos.94

Whether Nicolas Catari issued the edict is irrelevant, what matters is that it circu-lated and elicited a compelling response. Others indicated that after the death ofTomas Catari, his brothers ordered that the Indians finish off with all thosewho were not Indians and with those who opposed them.95 In addition, whenIndians under Simon Castillo occupied San Pedro de Buenavista in Septemberand October, 1780, they demanded that the priest hand over not only thecuracas but also all of the Mestizos.96

Some Mestizos, especially those who had never been Hispanicized, did manageto win acceptance by the Indians. Apart from the Amaru clan, the most notable isthe case of Tupiza, where the Mestizo Lus Laso de la Vega briefly secured theallegiance of many Indians in the region surrounding the town. Earlier, whenNicolas Catari attacked the village of Aullagas he did so with Mestizos in hiscompany, many of whom were from Challapata. Finally, in the town of Oruro,while initially supporting the Creoles, Mestizos increasingly sided withthe Indians.97 Given the widespread anti-Mestizo mood, it is likely that their pre-sence among the Indians often must have been accompanied by some mutual dis-trust or resentment. In addition, while many may have been eager to join therebellion, many others were conscripted in exchange for the rebels sparing their

lives. Other Mestizos were so only in the legal sense, as many Indians hadsucceeded in having themselves legally declared Mestizos to avoid tribute andthe mita.98

If there was an element of ambivalence concerning Indian treatment ofMestizos, the same cannot be said about rebel treatment of Spaniards andCreoles. Indeed, the progressive Indian intolerance of all non-natives is indicativeof the radicalization of the rebellion. While in August and September, 1780,attacks focused on Mestizo curacas, by October, the scope of hostility hadrapidly widened to target individuals with white or light complexions and thosewho dressed in the Spanish fashion. The two most prominent examples of this

shift were the deaths in January, 1781, of corregidors Bodega in the town of

NICHOLAS ROBINS

362


13/26

Paria and Ibanez in the town of Carangas; individuals who were sufficiently brazento attempt tribute collection during the rebellion.99

Despite the initial and fleeting collaboration between Creoles and Indians in

Oruro, race and the degree to which one embraced Hispanic culture became thebasis for deciding who lived and died. While Corregidor Urruta of Oruro wasthe prize so eagerly sought by the rebels in Oruro, they killed any Spaniard theycould find. So furious was this desire that the rebels dug up graves looking for fugi-tives, smelled soil to see if it had recently been turned, and searched the intersticesof every church and convent. Then, with the Spaniards either dead or very wellhidden, Indian wrath turned to their erstwhile Creole allies. The rebels issued anorder in Aymara prohibiting Creoles, on pain of death, from being part of theirforces or having firearms, and increasingly attacked their persons and property.100

In nearby Arque, one Creole desperately wrote to the Creole leader and fleeting

Indian ally Jacinto Rodrguez asking if it was true that he had given orders thatthe Indians kill all whites without distinction between Spaniard and Creole.101

This radicalism sharply increased during the subsequent siege of the town; theinsurgents stating that they planned to kill every non-Indian there, includingclergy, women and children.102 The events in and around Oruro were quiterestrained relative to the bloodshed which afflicted many other towns. In the pro-vinces of Cochabamba and Misque, almost all of the whites, Spaniard and Creole,along with loyalist Mestizos, who were captured were put to the knife, club orstone. Thousands met extremely brutal deaths there in the villages of Colcha,Palca, Ayopaia, Tarata, Arque and Tapacari. The same racial criterion was used

in San Pedro de Buenavista, Carangas and in the region surrounding Tupiza.

103

One only had to dress like or have collaborated with non-Indians to be con-sidered white or a spiritual Spaniard in rebel eyes. This helps to explainwhy some Mestizos, including but not limited to curacas, were killed and otherswere not. Evidence that clothing made one white is abundant in Oruro, asshown by the Incaization of the Creoles. On February 14th, 1781, the townliterally overflowing with Indian rebels, the leaders ordered that all inhabitantsin the town wear only Indian garb, chew coca, and address one another in thenative tongue.104 Likewise, in the village of Chocaya, all people were orderedto wear only Indian dress.105 In the villages of Arque, Colcha, Sacaca andChocaya non-Indian prisoners were also compelled to wear Indian garb by their

captors.106 In Sicasica, one contemporary noted that the Indians there killedthose of their nation who used shirts and were not immediately moving to theirdress.107 During the siege of La Paz, Tupac Catari ordered, as always underpain of death, that only Aymara be spoken, that people only use native dress,and that his followers neither eat bread nor drink water from fountains.108 Thisunderscores the ethnocidal nature of the uprising, and demonstrates that somerebels were willing to keep non-Indians alive, at least temporarily, if they couldcontribute to the pachacuti, as scribes, weapons operators, and servants.

Sparing the lives of whites as the exception, and not the rule, however, and thegenocidal nature of the rebellion in this region was clear to contemporaries. One

observer wrongly believed that Tupac Amaru had ordered the death of all whites


363


14/26

and affirmed that the Indians wanted the extermination of all non-Indians.109

Another asserted that the natives desired that there not remain in this vastkingdom any other kind of people than that of their own caste.110 One contempor-

ary lamented that they killed with more cruelty all those that had white faces,while a witness in Chayanta stated that the Indians had the goal of killing asmany Spaniards as they could find.111 The Spaniard Florentn Alfaro said thathe fled Chocaya because he had heard that the rebels intended to finish off allof the Spaniards and Mestizos.112 The defender of La Paz, Sebastan de Segurola,wrote that he believed that Tupac Amarus object was not just to kill the corregi-dors and Europeans, as I thought at the beginning, but rather all those who were notlegitimately Indians.113 A captive priest of Tupac Catari also recognized that therebel sought the total extermination of the Spanish people, both patrician andEuropean, and of the[ir] life, customs and Religion.114 Another religious kept

captive by the rebels in the region of Sicasica stated that the rebels had not onlycoined their own money so as not to see the royal face, but also sought topass under the knife the Spaniards and Mestizos without sparing the priests,women nor children, and [to] extinguish the cattle and seeds of Spain.115 Theevents of the region demonstrate that this was not just Spanish hyperbole.

Many rebels were quite candid about the genocidal nature of their undertaking,and many who were active in the southern provinces were subsequently active inthe in siege of La Paz.116 An Indian who participated in the massacre in San Pedrode Buenavista confessed that he came with the express desire of taking the livesof the Spaniards, while another in Cochabamba acknowledged that the rebels

there sought to kill white people and seize their belongings.

117

In the villageof Carasi, the Mestizo rebel Andres Gonzales expressed his intent to kill all ofthe Spaniards and Creoles from the priest on.118

In Poroma, the rebel Sebastan Morochi confessed that the Indians intended tokill everyone [there] including the priest, while Sencio Chamsi also stated thatthe rebels sought to destroy all of the Spaniards there.119 In Tapacari the rebelsexpressed their desire not only to kill the curaca but also his relatives up to thefifth generation.120 In Sillota and Oruro, other confessants such as DiegoCalsina, Juan Solis, Cruz Tomas and Manuel Mamani also stated their desire tokill all non-Indians.121 In his confession, the rebel Casimiro Ramos stated thatamong the objectives of the rebels, especially those from Sillota, was to extermi-

nate the town, while the Indian Eusebio Padilla said he wanted to kill Spaniards,Mestizos, blacks and all except the tributary Indians.122 The rebel AscensioTaquichiro of Challacollo confessed to wanting to burn the town and kill theinhabitants without leaving one alive who was not an Indian.123

During the siege of La Paz, Tupac Catari demanded that the defenders destroythe fortifications of the city and hand over all of the corregidors . . . Europeans. . . priests and their assistants, the royal officials, the customs tax collectors, hacen-dados and firearms.124 In one letter Catari ordered that all the Creoles die, lateradding that he wanted to finish off everyone with the objective that there will notbe Mestizos.125 His sister, Gregoria Apasa, stated that among the goals of the

rebels was to take the lives of the whites whenever they had the opportunity.126

NICHOLAS ROBINS

364


15/26

Augustina Zerna, the Aymara consort of Andres Tupac Amaru during the siege ofLa Paz, confessed that the rebels sought to finish with all the Spaniards or whitefaces.127 The rebel Josefa Anaya, the wife of Tupac Cataris advisor Joaqun

Anaya, stated that the insurgents wanted to kill the corregidors, the Europeansand bad Creoles, although in reality they always killed everyone they found.128

Diego Quispe likewise asserted that their goal was to kill absolutely all thewhites without distinction.129

In the same area, the rebel Diego Estaca admitted that the principal objectiveof the uprising was to get rid of all of the white people.130 In Tiquina, on LakeTiticaca, the rebel Tomas Callisaya called for the death of all corregidors,curacas, their families, tax and tribute collectors, and of Spaniards, Creolesand all persons that are or appear to be Spanish or that are at least dressed in imita-tion of them.131 Lest there be any doubt about his intentions, he also ordered that

the Indians not eat bread nor drink water from fountains but rather totally separatethemselves from all of the customs of the Spanish.

Not only Indian actions against non-Indians, but the context of these actions inUpper Peru, indicate the genocidal nature of the uprising. Those who directed therebellion in the field sought, as Lemkin stated, the destruction of . . . an ethnicgroup . . . through a synchronized attack on different aspects of life.132 Lemkingoes on to state that the purpose of such attacks is the elimination of the essentialfoundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groupsthemselves. The objectives . . . are the disintegration of the political and socialinstitutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion and the economic

existence of national groups, and the destruction of the. . .

lives of the individualsbelonging to such groups.133

The events in Upper Peru also are consistent with the broader definition adoptedby the United Nations, and mirror that of Drost, who suggests that genocide bedefined broadly as the deliberate destruction of physical life of individualhuman beings by reason of their membership of any human collectivity assuch.134 It is also consistent with the view of du Preez, who defines genocideas the deliberate killing of people primarily because they are categorized asbeing of a certain kind, with certain attributes.135

The events in Upper Peru also reflect the definition offered by Bauer, whodefines genocide as

the planned destruction, since the mid-eighteenth century, of a racial, national or ethnic

group by the following means: (a) selective mass murder of elites or part of the population;

(b) elimination of national (racial, ethnic) culture and religious life with the intent of dena-

tionalization; (c) enslavement, with the same intent; (d) destruction of national (racial,

ethnic) economic life, with the same intent; (e) biological decimation through the kidnapping

of children, or the prevention of normal family life, with the same intent.136

Likewise, the Great Rebellion is consistent with a definition developed byHelen Fein, which states that genocide consists of the calculated murder of asegment or all of a group defined outside of the universe of obligation of the per-

petrator by a government, elite, staff or crowd [where the universe of obligation is]


365


16/26

the range of people to whom the common conscience extends: the people towardwhom rules and obligations are binding.137 Finally, the events in Upper Peru aredescribed by the definition offered by Chalk and Jonassohn as a form of one-sided

mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as thatgroup and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator.138 The reference tomass killing in the definition reflects their observation that, despite theirintent, genocidal policies rarely succeed in eliminating entire populations.139

Where the events in Upper Peru deviated from some definitions of genocideconcerns the role of government, access to power, and the unscientific and unbur-eaucratic manner in which is was conducted. While the rebels did establish a formof government to enforce native ways, it remained highly decentralized andfragmented, like the movement itself, and emerged after they established domi-nance, not before. This distinguishes it from many genocides, especially

modern ones, which tend to be perpetrated by a centralized governmental appar-atus. The decentralized nature of rebel rule, and their own internal divisions, onlyserved to strengthen those whom they sought to exterminate. This, combined withthe superior weaponry, tactics and organization of the loyalists, were crucialfactors in the defeat of the insurgency. This is uncharacteristic of most genocides,in which, as Chalk and Jonassohn note, the victims usually have no organizedmilitary machinery that might be opposed to that of the perpetrator.140

Harff and Gurr emphasize the role of the state in their definition, asserting thatgenocide consists of the promotion and execution of policies of a state or theiragents which result in the deaths of a substantial portion of a group.141 Similarly,

Horowitz defines genocide as the structural and systematic destruction of inno-cent people by a state bureaucratic apparatus.142 He goes on to argue that onlytotalitarian regimes are capable of such acts.143 A similar approach is found inDadrians construct of genocide, in which it is the successful attempt by a domi-nant group, vested with formal authority and/or with preponderant access to theoverall resources of power, to reduce by coercion or lethal violence the numberof a minority group whose ultimate extermination is held desirable and usefuland whose respective vulnerability is a major factor contribution to the decisionfor genocide.144 While the events in Upper Peru are largely consistent withthis construct, they demonstrate that groups without formal authority and/orwith preponderant access to the overall resources of power are capable of geno-

cide. Likewise, if exterminatory policies were perpetrated against a majoritygroup, would that not also be genocide? In todays age of nuclear proliferation,we must also recognize that genocide is possible by individuals or groups whomay not be part of a state but who have the ability to access and deployweapons of mass destruction against groups they seek to exterminate.

Concerning genocidal intent on the part of the perpetrators, most authors, withthe exceptions of Kuper and Charny, agree that intent is necessary for genocide.145

Just as Chalk and Jonassohn note that intent may be imputed by analyzing theinherent logic of the situation and the processes occurring in the environment,so can genocide be imputed by the universe of actions of the perpetrators.146

This is especially the case in a situation such as found in Upper Peru, where

NICHOLAS ROBINS

366


17/26

eschatological prophecies, messianic expectations and millennial hopes werepredicated upon the elimination of non-Indians and subsequently expressed ininsurgent actions.

Regarding typologies, which tend to center on motive, the Great Rebellion isconsistent with several forms of genocide. This reflects the fact that there wereseveral causes of the uprising, ranging from eschatological hopes for an Incaic res-toration, long-standing conflict and hatred of the mita, reparto and other colonialexactions, and resentment of the fiscal reforms by differing sectors of the popu-lation. The events in Upper Peru had strong elements of cultural genocide inthat it largely sought the destruction of the interlopers culture and perhaps theassimilation of the few survivors into the new society. Likewise, given the levelof hatred by the Indians of the Spanish, their desire for riches, and depth oftheir goals in terms of racial homogeneity and redistribution of power, it had,

respectively, retributive, utilitarian and monopolistic characteristics.147

Reflectingthe racial and cultural differences between Spaniards and Indians, it also hadcharacteristics that Harff and Gurr would consider xenophobic as it was inthe service of doctrines of . . . social purification which define the victim asalien and threatening.148

Conclusion

Rebel actions in Upper Peru clearly indicate that the uprising was millennial,genocidal and of a perpetuative nativist character. With few exceptions, including

Tupac Amaru and Tomas Catari, those who led the rebellion at the field levelthroughout the region sought to exterminate non-Indians and bring about a new,utopian, Indian order free of oppression and almost all Spanish influences.Several convictions fortified the insurgents. Popular and nostalgic memories ofInca grandeur were reinforced by prophetic beliefs that the return of native rulehad been divinely ordained. Perhaps as important was a faith among manyIndians that if they died in battle, they would be resurrected and enjoy the neworder on earth. Such beliefs were reinforced by the popular perception of TupacAmaru and other charismatic rebel leaders such as Tomas Catari, Tupac Catari,Simon Castillo and Pedro de la Cruz Condori as demigods who were veneratedby their adherents.

The millenarian prophecies of the rebirth of Incaic ways appeared to theIndians to be occurring before their eyes. Overall, the natives saw themselvesas channels of the inevitable and divine cataclysm that would herald thearrival of Inkarr, inaugurate a new time cycle and bring about the long-awaited ascendance of the native gods over the Christian one. Indeed, the slaugh-ter and mutilation of priests and their parishioners in churches and on altarsdemonstrated the weakness of the Christian god and the resurgent power ofthe native ones. Related to this was the fact that rebels increasingly ignoredecclesiastical pleas and processions, burned Catholic images, and placed chalicesat the service of native gods by using them as vessels for offering chicha

(a fermented corn drink) and coca.


367


18/26

As the rebellion progressed, it crossed the border between millennialism andgenocide. Despite the scholarly, and international, debate on what exactly consti-tutes genocide, this movement is consistent with almost all definitions which form

the mainstream of genocide studies. In Upper Peru, however, we have seen thatthe leadership, and rebel rule, was highly fragmented and confederational innature, that it did not have a monopoly or dominance of power, and that the gen-ocide, while systematic, was not perpetrated in a scientific and bureaucraticmanner. Furthermore, the rebels faced a well-organized and better armed adver-sary. These factors help to explain another characteristic which further differen-tiates if from most genocides, that the victims became the victors. This suggeststhat such traits, while often characteristic of genocide, are not inherent to it. It isalso interesting to note that the Spanish response to genocide was one of ethnocide,or the attempt to eliminate a culture but not its members, upon whom the colonial

economic system depended.149

Not only did the victors ban the use of the Quechualanguage but also the use of Indian royal clothing, paintings, flags, books and playsassociated with the Inca past.150 By stripping the Indians of their culture theysought to make them both easier to manage and eliminate potential rallyingpoints of future rebellions.

Genocide and cultural extirpation formed the core of the rebel goals, even ifthey were clouded by a desire for the silver, alcohol, weapons and sometimeseven the clothing of their enemies. The central truth remains: those who led andprosecuted the insurgency in Upper Peru were attempting to create a newIndian-led society free from the presence, burdens and cosmology of their erst-

while masters. The rebels perceived themselves to be agents in a cyclical anddivine drama, one which had so often been foreshadowed by prophecies andwhose realization was then, in their eyes, finally occurring. In the end, TupacAmarus vision of a multi-ethnic, Catholic society has been shared more bymodern scholars than the rebels who fought under his titular leadership.

Notes and References

1 The author would like to thank Roger Smith, Kurt Jonassohn, Peter du Preez, Norman Cohn and JanSzeminski for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. The themes of this work are exploredin greater detail in Nicholas Robins, Genocide and Millennialism in Upper Peru: The Great Rebellion of

17801782 (Westport: Praeger Publishers 2002). For a comparative study of the Great Rebellion, thePueblo Revolt of 1680 and the 1847 1901 Caster War of Yucatan, see Nicholas Robins,Native Insurgenciesand the Genocidal Impulse in the Americas (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005).

2 Relacion de los sucesos de la Provincia de Cochabamba ano de 1781. Written by the cabildo ofCochabamba. Cochabamba, December 17, 1781. Archivo General de Indias (AGI), Charcas 595, 4;Oficio del Regente Geronimo Manuel de Ruedas. La Plata, September 18, 1781. AGI, Charcas 596, 12.

3 Ibid.; Actuaciones anteriores ala formacion de esta causa de Oruro. La Plata, February 22, 1781. AGI,Charcas 599, 6; Declaracion de Martina Rueda. In El Corregor. Dela Villa de Cochabamba sobre losdes-trozos que executaron los indios en Tapacari. Oropesa, March 7, 1781. Archivo Nacional de Bolivia (ANB),SGI.1781.62, 3; Declaracion de Da. Mara Losa. In El Corregor. Dela Villa de Cochabamba sobre losdestrozos que executaron los indios en Tapacari. Oropesa, March 7, 1781. ANB, SGI.1781.62, 6, 7.

4 Declaracion de Da. Magdalena Tribino, in El Corregor. Dela Villa de Cochabamba sobre los destrozosque executaron los indios en Tapacari. Oropesa, March 7, 1781. ANB, SGI.1781.62, 8.

5 Declaracion de Da. Magdalena Tribino, 9; Carta que refiere los estragos estragos hechos por los Yndios

alzados en Suches mineral de la Provincia de Larecaja del Obispado de La Paz; y en los pueblos de Arque,

NICHOLAS ROBINS

368


19/26

Hapacari, y Colcha en la Provincia de Cochabamba, perteneciente al Arzobispado de la Plata. Cochabamba,February 26, 1781. In book 2, Vol 1, Coleccion Documental de la independencia del Peru, Carlos DanielValcarcel, ed. (Lima: Comision Nacional del Sesquicentenario de la Independencia del Peru, 1971),p 509; Declaracion de Da. Mara Crespo, and Declaracion de Da. Magdalena Tribino, both in

El Corregor. Dela Villa de Cochabamba sobre los destrozos que executaron los indios en Tapacari.Oropesa, March 7, 1781. ANB, SGI.1781.62, 5, 89.

6 Declaracion de Dn. Martn Condori. In El Corregor. Dela Villa de Cochabamba sobre los destrozos queexecutaron los indios en Tapacari. Oropesa, March 7, 1781. ANB, SGI.1781.62, 2.

7 Carta que refiere a los estragos, p 509; Valentn Abecia Baldivieso, La insurrecion india de Tupacari en1781, in Carlos Daniel Valcarcel, ed., Actas de coloquio Internacional: Tupac Amaru y su tiempo. (Lima:Comision Nacional del Bicentenario de la Revolucion Emancipadora de Tupac Amaru, 1982), p 41.

8 Relacion historica de los sucesos de la rebelion de Jose Gabriel Tupac-Amaru en las provincias del Peru elano de 1780. In Vol 4, Coleccion de obras y documentos relativos a la historia del Rio de la Plata, Pedro deAngelis, ed. (Buenos Aires: Libreria Nacional de J. Lajouane, 1910), p 292.

9 Carta que refiere los estragos, p 508.10 Relacion de sucesos de la Provincia de Cochabamba, p 6; Declaracion de Da. Mara Crespo. In

El Corregor. Dela Villa de Cochabamba sobre los destrozos que executaron los indios en Tapacari.Oropesa, March 7, 1781. ANB, SGI.1781.62, 5; Declaracion de Dn. Salvador Conde. In El Corregor.dela Villa de Cochabamba sobre los destrozos que executaron los indios en Tapacari. Oropesa, March 7,1781. ANB, SGI.1781.62, 10.

11 Carta que refiere a los estragos, p 509.12 Ibid., Relacion de sucesos de la provincia de Cochabamba, pp 4, 6; Carta de Arequipa con fecha 2 de

Maya de 1781 que refiere los estragos executados por los indios alzados en varios pueblos de las provinciasde ambos virreyenatos. Arequipa, May 2, 1781. In book 2, Vol 1, Coleccion Documental de la independen-cia del Peru, Carlos Daniel Valcarcel, ed. (Lima: Comision Nacional del Sesquicentenario de la Indepen-dencia del Peru, 1971), p 694.

13 Confesion de Francisco Gonzalo, La Plata, April 20, 1781. AGI, Charcas 603, 26; Confesion de NicolasGueso, La Plata, April 20, 1781. AGI, Charcas 603, 28; Confesion de Diego Sosa. La Plata, April 20,1781. AGI, Charcas 603, 29; Confesion de Simon Castillo, La Plata, April 25, 1781. AGI, Charcas603, 32.

14 Confesion de Pasqual Tola, La Plata, April 20, 1781. AGI, Charcas 603, 27.

15 Confesion de Francisco Gonzalo, pp 2526.16 Relacion de los hechos mas notables acaecidos en la sublevacion general fraguada en los reynos del Peru,por el indio Jose Gabriel Tupac Amaru, gobr. del pueblo de Tungasuca en la Provincia de Tinta, que aso-ciado de otros sequaces, causo horrosos estragos desde el ano 1780, hasta el de 1782 en que se reprimoel orgullo de la conjuracion, in Revista de archivos y bibliotecas nacionales 3, Vol 5 (Lima, September30, 1900), pp 170171; Actuaciones anteriores, 23; Confesion de Josef Daga. La Plata, April 25,1781. In Criminales contra Nicolas Catari y otros indios. AGI, Charcas 603, 12; Carta de Estiban

Lidosa a Geronimo Manuel de Ruedas. La Plata, April 9, 1781. AGI, Charcas 603, 24; Confesio n deLazaro Mamani. April 18, 1781, AGI, Charcas 603, 25; Confesion de Sebastiana Mamani. La Plata,April 18, 1781. AGI, Charcas 603, 25.

17 Diario trunco de los sucesos desde el 4 febo. hasta Octr. 16 de 1780 en Chuquisaca. La Plata, October 16,1780. ANB, Ruck.1780.96, 11.

18 See, for example, Carlos Daniel Valcarcel, La rebelion de Tupac Amaru (Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Eco-

nomica, 1970); Jorge Cornejo Bouroncle, Tupac Amaru: La rebelion precursora de la emancipacion nacio-

nal (Cuzco: Universidad Nacional de Cuzco, 1949); Lillian E. Fisher, The Last Inca Revolt, 17801783(Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1966); and Juan Jose Vega, Jose Gabriel Tupac Amaru (Lima:Editorial Universo, S.A., 1969). Concerning Chayanta, see also Sergio Serulnikov, Disputed Images ofColonialism: Spanish Rule and Indian Subversion in Northern Potos , 17771780, Hispanic AmericanHistorical Review, Vol 76, No 2 (May, 1996), pp 189226.

19 Representacion del Dr. Manuel Reque cura acerca de los robos, saqueos y profanaciones del templos. LaPaz, July 5, 1783. ANB, SGI.1783.206, 5; Carta del Cabildo de Cochabamba al Rey, Cochabamba,January 31, 1782. AGI Charcas 595, 2; Carta de Arequipa con fecha 2 de Mayo de 1781. In Valcarcel,book 2, Vol 1, Coleccion Documental, 692.

20 Augustn Jauregui y Aldecoa,Relacion y documentos de Gobierno del Virrey del Peru, Augustn de Jauregui yAldecoa (1780 1784). Remedio Contreras, ed. (Madrid: Instituto Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo, 1982), p195.

21 See Cornblit, Power and Violence in the Colonial City: Oruro and the Mining Renaissance to the Rebellionof Tupac Amaru (1740 1782) (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp 137160.


369


20/26

22 Scarlett OPhelan Godoy, Rebellions and Revolts in Eighteenth Century Peru and Upper Peru (Colonge:Bohlau Verlag, 1985), pp 111, 118119, 153, 162, 16768, 200, 278; see also Cornblit, Power and Vio-lence, pp 124126 and Sergio Serulnikov, Revindicaciones indgenas y legalidad colonial. La rebelionde Chayanta (17771781) (Buenos Aires: Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad, 1989), p 7. For

more on the origins of the rebellion, see Oscar Cornblit, Society and Mass Rebellion in 18th CenturyPeru and Bolivia, in Raymond Carr, ed. Latin American Affairs. St. Antonys Papers, #27 (London:

Oxford University Press, 1970). Concerning moral economy, see Ward Stavig, Ethnic Conflict, MoralEconomy and Population in Rural Cuzco on the Eve of the Thupa Amaro II Rebellion, in Hispanic-Amer-ican Historical Review, Vol 68, No 4 (Nov. 1988), pp 737770. For a broad treatment on the relationshipsbetween violence and culture in the Andes, see Deborah Poole, ed., Unruly Order: Violence, Power andCultural Identity in the High Provinces of Southern Peru (Boulder: Westview Press, 1994).

23 Claudio Andrade Padilla, La Rebelion de Tomas Catari (Sucre, Bolivia: IPTK/CIPRES, 1994), p 69.24 For a detailed examination of Tomas Cataris experiences with the colonial legal system, see Sergio

Serulnikov, 1988, 1989, 1996 and also Claudio Andrade Padilla, 1994.25 Herbert Klein, Bolivia: The Evolution of a Multi-Ethnic Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982),

p 76; Leon Campbell, Ideology and Factionalism during the Great Rebellion, 1780 1782, in Steve Stern,ed., Resistance, Rebellion, and Consciousness in the Andean Peasant World, Eighteenth to TwentiethCenturies (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1987), pp 129, 131; Jan Szeminski, Why Kill aSpaniard? New Perspectives on Andean Insurrectionary Ideology in the 18th Century, in Stern, Resistance,Rebellion and Consciousness, p 176; Scarlett OPhelan Godoy, Elementos etnicos y de poder en elmovimiento Tupacamarista, 178081. Torino: Nova Americana, 1982, p 81; Jose Macedonio Urquidi,

Compendio de la historia de Bolivia (Buenos Aires: Talleres Graficos EGLH, 1944), p 82; CarlosD. Valcarcel, La rebelion de Tupac Amaru (Mexico City: Fondo de la Cultura Economica, 1970), p 198.

26 Informe de oidores Pedro Antonio Zernudas y Lorenzo Blanco Ciceron. La Plata, Mar. 14, 1781. AGI,Charcas 596, 2; Representacion de Juan de Dios Pinapi, La Plata, Oct. 20, 1780. AGI, Charcas 596,36; Fragment of Informe. n.p., n.d. AGI, Charcas, 594, 2; Confesio n de Asensio Pacheco. La Plata, Apr.18, 1781. AGI, Charcas 603, 39; Orden de Tomas Katari. Macha, October 21, 1780. AGI, Charcas596, 160.

27 Campbell, Ideology, p 119; Boleslao Lewin, La rebelion de Tupac Amaru (Buenos Aires: SociedadEditora Latinoamericana, 1957), p 739; Szeminski,Why Kill a Spaniard, p 172; Valcarcel, La rebelionde Tupac Amaru, p 191.

28 Klein, p 76.29 Mara Eugenia Valle de Siles, Tupac Katari y la rebelion de 1781: Radiografa de un caudillo aymara.

Anuario de Estudios Americanos 34 (1977), p 653, Valcarcel, La rebelion de Tupac Amaru, p 199; Camp-bell, Ideology, pp 132133.

30 Representacion del indio Tomas Catari, Macha, November 12, 1780. AGI, Charcas 595, 1; Carta deIgnacio Flores a Juan Jose Vertz. May 13, 1781, AGI, Charcas 596, 5; Orden de Toma s Catari,Macha, October 21, 1780. AGI, Charcas 596, 80; Relacion de los hechos mas notables, 159.

31 Campbell, Banditry and the Tupac Amaru Rebellion in Cuzco, Peru, 1780 1784, in BibliothecaAmericana, Vol 1, No 2 (November 1982), p 153.

32 Szeminksi, La utopia Tupamarista (Lima: Pontfica Universidad Catolica del Peru, 1984), pp 246, 277;Alberto Flores Galindo, La nacion como utopa: Tupac Amaru 1780, in Lus Durand Florez, ed., La revo-lucion de los Tupac Amaru (Lima: Comission Nacional del Bicentenario de la Republica, 1981), p 278.

33 Bando de coronacion de Tupac Amaru, np., nd. In Manuel de Odriozola, ed., Documentos historicos delPeru en las epocas del coloniaje despues de la conquista y de la independencia hasta la presente (Lima:

Tipografia de Aurelio Alfaro, 1863), p 206; Szeminski, La utopa, pp 246, 277; Iden., Why Kill theSpaniard? pp 176, 178; Valcarcel, La rebelion de Tupac Amaru, pp 41, 144, 152; Campbell, Banditryand the Tupac Amaru, pp 152153; Boleslao Lewin, Tupac Amaru: su epoca epocasu luchasu hado(Buenos Aires: diciones Siglo Veinte, 1973), p 31; Alberto Flores Galindo, Tupac Amaru y la sublevacionde 1780, in Alberto Flores Galindo, ed., Tupac Amaru II: 1780 (Lima: Retablo de Papel Ediciones, 1976), p282.

34 Campbell, Banditry and the Tupac Amaru, 156.35 Copias de documentos citados en el diario, #10, in Diario del cerco de La Paz en 1781, por Sebastan de

Segurola. La Paz, May 30, 1781. ANB, SGI.1781.s.n., 19; Carta de Tupac Catari a un eclesasticoFranciscano. El Alto, April 9, 1781. In Relacion de los hechos mas notables, 264; Diario de Sebastande Segurola, La Paz, July 1, 1781. AGI, Charcas, 595, 14; Carta de Ignacio Flores a Josef Galvez.Cochabamba, May 6, 1782. AGI, Charcas 444, 3.

36 Jan Szeminski, Personal Correspondence, 3/4/01.37 Ibid.

NICHOLAS ROBINS

370


21/26

38 Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974), p 1.39 Mark Hagopian, The Phenomenon of Revolution (New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1974), p 25.40 Ralph Linton, Nativisitic Movements, American Anthropologist, Vol 45, No 2 (AprilJune, 1943), p 230.41 Linton, 231.

42 Ibid., 232; Wallace, Revitalization Movements, in American Anthropologist, Vol 58, No 1 (February,1956), p 274; Cohn, pp 8485, 88, 284; Michael Adas, Prophets of Rebellion: Millenarian Protest Move-ments Against the European Colonial Order(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979), p 112;Michael Barkun, Disaster and the Millennium (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974), p 86.

43 Vittorio Lanternari, The Religions of the Oppressed(New York: Alfred Knopf and Company, 1963), p 242;Hagiopian, p 24.

44 Robert Tucker, The Theory of Charismatic Leadership, in Daedalus, Vol 97 (1968), p 742.45 Ibid., p 74346 Campbell, Ideology, pp 113, 115, 116 118, 129; Szeminski, Why Kill the Spaniard? p 173.47 Campbell, Ideology, pp 113, 118; Franklin Pease, El mito de Inkarry la vision de los vencidos, in Juan

Ossio, ed., Ideologa mesanica del mundo andino (Lima: I. Prado Pastor, 1973), p 448; Alberto FloresGalindo, In Search of an Inca, in Steve Stern, ed., Resistance, Rebellion and Consciousness (Madison:University of Madison Press, 1987), p 201; Nathan Wachtel, The Vision of the Vanquished (New York:Barnes and Noble, 1977), p 183; Rosalind Gow, Inkarr and Revolutionary Leadership in the SouthernAndes, in Journal of Latin American Lore, Vol 8, No 2 (1982), p 197; Mercedes Lopez Baralt, Elretorno del Inca Rey: Mito y profeca en el mundo andino (La Paz: Hisbol, 1989), p 37; ScarlettOPhelan Godoy, La Gran Rebelion en los Andes: De Tupac Amaru a Tupac Catari (Cuzco: Centro deEstudios Regionales Andino Bartolome de las Casas, 1995), p 37. See also Marco Curatola, Mito y mile-narianismo en los andes: del Taqui Onqoy a Inkarr, in Juan Ossio, ed., Ideologa mesianica del mundoandino (Lima: I. Prado Pastor, 1973), pp 6592; and Sabine MacCormack, Pachacuti: Miracles, Punish-ment and the Last Judgment. Visionary Past and Prophetic Future in Early Colonial Peru, in American

Historical Review, Vol 93, No 45 (Oct. 1988), pp 9601006.48 Szeminksi, La utopa, pp 246, 277; Flores Galindo, La nacion como utopa, p 278.49 Campbell, Ideology, pp 117, 127; Idem., Banditry and the Tupac Amaru, p 139; Cohn, pp 32, 7273.50 Jorge Hidalgo Lehunde, Amarus y Cataris: aspectos mesianicos de la rebelion indgena de 1781 in Cusco,

Chayanta, La Paz, y Arica, in Chungara, Voll 10 (Arica: March 1983), p 121; Szeminski, Why Kill theSpaniard? pp 179180.

51 Carta de Ignacio Florez a Juan Jose Vertz. Oruro, October 9, 1781. AGI, Charcas 595, 1.52 Informe de Fr. Alonso Guterrez. Oruro, September 9, 1783. AGI, Charcas 597, 1, 4.53 Consejo Real de Indias al Sr. Virrrey de Buenos Aires. Aranjuez, April 21, 1782. AGI, Charcas 595, 1.54 Informe de Fr. Alonso Guterrez. Oruro, September 9, 1783. AGI, Charcas 597, 1, 4.55 Actuaciones anteriores, pp 91, 95; Declaracion de Fray Josef Servantes, Oruro, April 9, 1781. In

Testimonio del expedientes y diligencias practicadas para averiguar los tumultos meditadas contraOruro, AGI, Charcas 601, 18.

56 Szeminski, Why Kill the Spaniard? p 167.57 Ibid., p 182.58 Copias de documentos citados en el diario, #18. In Diario del cerco de La Paz en 1781, por Sebastan de

Segurola. La Paz, May 30, 1781. ANB, SGI.1781.s.n., 25.59 Carta de Fray Matas de la Borda a Sebastan de Segurola. La Paz, May 30, 1781. AGI, Charcas 595, 5.60 Carta de Tupac Catari a Jose de Ayarza. Np., nd. In Relacion de los hechos mas notables, p 230.

61 Ibid., p 28.

62 Ibid.63 H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York: Oxford University

Press, 1946), pp 295296; Tucker, pp 731, 742.64 Szeminksi, Why Kill the Spaniard? p 175.65 Pedro de Angelis,Discurso preliminar al la revolucion de Tupac-Amaru, in Vol 4, Coleccion de obras y

documentos relativos a la historia del Rio de la Plata, Pedro de Angelis, ed. (Buenos Aires, LibreriaNacional de J. Lajouane, 1910), p 269; Szeminski, Why Kill the Spaniard? p 174; Campbell, Ideology,pp 117118; Idem., Banditry, p 139. Lopez Baralt, pp 37, 40; Valle de Siles, Tupac Katari, p 654.

66 Szeminksi, Why Kill the Spaniard? p 187.67 Hidalgo Lehunde, p 123.68 Diario trunco, p 2; Representacion de Domingo Angeles a Geronoimo Manuel de Ruedas. La Plata,

October 17, 1780. AGI, Charcas 593, 12.69 Representacion de Juan de Dios Pinapi, p 18; Declaracion de Bernardo Franco. Potosi, March 24, 1781.

AGI, Charcas 437-b, 13.


371


22/26

70 Carta de Ignacio Flores a Juan Jose Vertz, May 13, 1781, 3.71 Declaracion de Alvento Arze. Oropesa, Cochabamba, October 2, 1780. AGI, Charcas 596, 70.72 Informe del corregidor de Paria Manuel de Bodega, La Plata, October 21, 1780. AGI, Charcas 596,

9293.

73 Diario y realcion prolija jurada que yo el General Don Juan Gelly Gelly hago de todos los pasajes y sucesosacaecidos en varias distritos y lugares. La Plata. AGI, Charcas 594, 23; Anexo al diario y relacion rela-

cion prolija jurada que yo el general Don Juan Gelly hago de todos los pasajes y sucesos acaecidos en variosdistritos y lugares. La Plata, September 9, 1780. AGI, Charcas, 594, 1; Relacion de los hechos masnotables, pp 145 147.

74 Carta de Joseph Antonio de Areche, Visitador de Tribunales y Superintendente de la Real Hacienda en Perual Superior Consejo de Indians, Cuzco, May 23, 1781. AGI, Charcas 595, 2.

75 Oficio de Gregorio Josef de Merlos a Juan Jose Vertz del 15 Febrero de 1781, in Lewin, La Rebelion deTupac Amaru y los origines de la independencia Hispanoamerica (Buenos Aires: Sociedad Editoria LatinoAmericana, 1967), p 739.

76 Relacion de sucesos de Cochabamba, p 12.77 Ibid.78 Campbell, Ideology, p 126; Iden., Banditry, pp 154 155; Szeminski, Why Kill the Spaniard?

pp 185 186.79 Carta de Valeriano Marino a Juan Pino de Manrique. Chayanta, October 11, 1780. AGI, Charcas 596, 72;

Informe de Pedro Yavira Ylario Caguasiri. San Pedro de Buenavista, December 28, 1780. AGI, Charcas596, 52.

80 Parte de D. Jose de Resegun al Virey de Buenos Aires, sobre la sublevacion de Santiago de Cotagaita.Cayza, April 15, 1781. In Vol 1, Documentos historicos del Peru en las epocas del coloniaje despues dela conquista y de la independencia hasta la presente, M. de Odriozola, 345; Parte de D. Jose de Resegunal Virey de Buenos Aires, sobre la sublevacion de la Provincia de Tupiza. Tupiza, March 18, 1781. In Vol 1,

Documentos historicos del Peru en las epocas del coloniaje despues de la conquista y de la independenciahasta la presente, M. de Odriozola, p 348.

81 Szeminski, Personal correspondence, 3/4/01; J.H. Rowe, El movimiento nacional Inca del siglo XVIII.Revista Universitaria, Vol XLIII, No 107 (1954), p 22; Curatola, p 71; Szeminski, Why Kill the Spaniard?p 179; See also Frank Saloman, Ancestor Cults and Resistance to the State in Arequipa, ca. 1748 1754, inSteve Stern, ed., Resistance, Rebellion, and Consciousness in the Andean Peasant World, Eighteenth to

Twentieth centuries (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1987).82 Relacion deloshechos mas notables,p 162;Carta de Gregorio Josef de Merlos a Fray ManuelParraga. Ocuri,January 26, 1781. AGI, Charcas 597, 4; Representacion de Gregorio Jose de Merlos al Rey. La Plata, March 12,1782. AGI, Charcas 597, 2; Declaracion de Ignacio Salguero. La Plata, April 4, 1781. AGI, Charcas 603, 14;Confesion de Nicolas Catari. La Plata, April 10, 1781. In Vol 1,Documentos historicos del Peruenlas epocasdel coloniaje despues de la conquista y de la independencia hasta la presente, M. Odriozola, p 326.

83 Oficio de Capellan de Challapata, Juan Antonio Beltran. Challapata, January 18, 1781. AGI, Charcas 595,

1 2; Dn. Pedro Anto Zernudas y Dn. Lorenzo Blanco Ciceron Oydores de la Rl Auda dela Plata informan aV.M. del estado en que se halla el [sic] rebelio n y Alzamto en la prova de Chayanta. La Plata, March 13,1781. AGI, Charcas 594, 3.

84 Actuaciones anteriores, pp 13, 45; Carta de Capellan Augustn Flores Urito a Jorge Escobedo,. Porco,February 21, 1781. AGI, Charcas 437-b, 25; Declaracion de Roque Argote, Potosi, March 7, 1781. AGI,Charcas 596, also Charcas 437-b, 910; Relacion historica, pp 2427; Diario fabuloso del cura de Oruro

Doctor Don Patricio Gabriel Menendez- Relacion trajica de los funestros y ruinosos aconticimientos de

Oruro, in Captulos de la historia colonial de Oruro, Marcos Beltran Avila (La Paz: La Republica, 1925),pp 289290; Relacion de los hechos mas notables, pp 170171; Confesion de Josef Daga, 12; Cartaque refiere los estragos, pp 508, 694; Relacion de sucesos de la Provincia de Cochabamba, pp 5, 7, 9.

85 Szeminski, Personal Correspondence, 3/4/01.86 Szeminski, Personal correspondence. 4/27/01.87 Flores Galindo, Tupac Amaru y la sublevacion de 1780, p 281.88 Serulnikov, Revindicaciones indigenas, pp 7 8, 16; Scarlett OPhelan Godoy, Rebellions and Revolts, pp

118119, 153.89 Serulnikov, Revindicaciones indigenas, p 7.90 Informe de Gregorio Josef de Merlos. Macha, October 7, 1780. AGI, Charcas 596, 11; Informe de

Tomas Catari, Macha, October 7, 1780. AGI, Charcas 596, 19; Carta de Gregorio Josef de Merlos aRamon de Herbovo y Figueroa, La Plata, January 23, 1781. AGI, Charcas 597, 3; Carta de GregorioJosef de Merlos al Licenciado Mariano de la Vega. La Plata, January 27, 1781. AGI, Charcas 597, 8;Oficio de Gregorio Josef de Merlos a Juan Jose Vertz del 14 de noviembre de 1780, in Lewin, La Rebelion

NICHOLAS ROBINS

372


23/26

de Tupac Amaru y los origines, p 735; Relacion de los hechos mas notables, 163; Representacion de Dn.Phelipe Ayaviri. La Plata, October 1780. AGI, Charcas 596, 15 16; Informe de Esteban de Arnescaray.La Plata, September 7, 1780. AGI, Charcas 596, 12; Auto de Manuel Parilla y Francisco Mendibal,Alcaldes Ordinarios. Oropesa, Cochabamba, September 21, 1780. AGI, Charcas 596, 62; Declaracion

de Eugenio Moya, La Plata, October 9, 1780. AGI, Charcas 596, 76; Oficio de Capellan Sebastan deBallestros al Regente Geronimo Manuel de Ruedas. San Pedro de Buenavista, September 25, 1780.

AGI, Charcas 596, 53; Representacion de Marcos Ancienega. San Pedro de Buenavista, September 24,1780. In Testimonio de los autos de la sublevacion de Chayanta. AGI, Charcas 596 5; Informe dePedro Yavira Ylario Caguasiri, San Pedro de Buenavista, December 28, 1780. AGI, Charcas 596, 51.

91 Fragment of Informe, p 1.92 Carta de Geronimo Manuel de Ruedas a Juan Jose Vertz. La Plata, May 15, 1781. AGI, Charcas 595, 1;

Carta de Geronimo de Ruedas a Josef de Galvez. April 19, 1781, AGI, Charcas 594, 1.93 Informe del Corregidor de Paria, p 92.94 Oficio de Francisco Javier Beltran, Potosi, Mar. 14, 1781. AGI, Charcas 437-b, 1.95 Informacion recivida en la Prova de Chayanta sobre aberiguar quienes han hido los principales caudillos de

la sublevcn de dichos pueblos. Moromoro, April 30, 1781. ANB, SGI.1781.160,17.96 Declaracion de Ysidro Josef de Herrera, 10; Declaracion de Pablo Caquasiri, 75; Carta de Domingo

Angeles a Geronimo Manuel de Ruedas. La Plata, October 8, 1780. AGI, Charcas 596, 7.97 Carta de Josef Gregorio de Merlos a Fray Manuel Parraga, 4; Confesion de Nicolas Catari, 320; Carta

de Pedro Zeberino de San Martn a Jorge Escobedo. Suypacha, March 8, 1781. AGI, Charcas 437-b, 64;ElRegente Presidente de Charcas da cuenta del feliz suceso de la expedn hecha el da 20 de Febrero inmtocontra los indios rebeldes. La Plata, May 15, 1781. AGI, Charcas 444, 2; see also Lewin, Tupac Amaru:El Rebelde, pp 294 295.

98 Carta de Felix Villalobos a Geronimo Manuel de Ruedas. Cochabamba, February 24, 1781. AGI, Charcas596, 67; Actuaciones anteriores, pp 5, 87, 99, 144; Relacio n de los hechos mas notables, p 206;Representacion de Felix Josef de Villalobos a Geronimo Manuel de Ruedas. La Plata, March 7, 1781.AGI, Charcas, 594, 7; Relacion de sucesos de la Provincia de Cochabamba, 4; Declaracion de FrayJosef Serbantes. Oruro, April 9, 1781. In Testimonio del expedientes y diligencias practicadas para aver-iguar los tumultos meditadas contra Oruro. AGI, Charcas 601, 18.

99 Carta de Juan Jose Vertz a Josef Galvez. February 19, 1781. AGI, Charcas 595, 3; Oficio de Capellan deChallapata, Juan Antonio Beltran. Challapata, January 18, 1781. AGI, Charcas 595, 1; see also Oficio del

regente de la Audiencia de Charcas a Virey de Buenos Aires, con inclusio n del Informe del cura de Chayantaen que da noticia de la muerte que dieron los indios de Paria a su corregidor. In Vol 4, Relacion de obras ydocumentos relativos ala historia antigua y moderna de las provincias de Rio de la Plata, Pedro de Angelis,ed. (Buenos Aires: Imprenta del Estado, 1836), Vol 4, p 259; Testimonio de Santos Mamani. Oruro, May25, 1781. AGI, Charcas 601, 72; Oficio de Capellan de Challapata, p 1.

100 Relacion Traxica de los funestros y ruinosos acaecemientos de la villa de Oruro. Potosi, April 13, 1781.AGI, Charcas 437-b, 2; Diario fabuloso, pp 292292.

101 Carta que refiere los estragos, p 508; Relacion de sucesos de la provincia de Cochabamba, p 4.102 Actuaciones anteriores, pp 21, 83, 84 85, 89, 90, 123; Testimonio de Santos Mamani, Oruro, May 25,

1781. AGI, Charcas 601, 73; Declaracion de Francisco Xavier Condori, Oruro, April 10, 1781. AGI,Charcas 601, 24; Testimonio de Martn Lopes, Oruro, April 7, 1781. AGI, Charcas 601, 26.

103 Carta que refiere a los estragos, pp 508 509; Carta de Arequipa, pp 693 694; Relacion de sucesos de laProvincia de Cochabamba, pp 4 5, 6 7; Actuaciones anteriores, pp 5, 6, 21,23, 87, 99, 144; Relaciondelos

hechos mas notables, pp 162, 170173; Carta del Cabildo de Cochabamba al Rey, p 1; El Regente Presi-

dente de la Rl. Audiencia de Charcas informa del cuidadoso estado de la rebelion de indios, La Plata, April 5,1781. AGI, Charcas 594 1; also Charcas 444, 1; Confesion de Josef Daga, 1, Confesion de Augustn VenturaLa Plata, April 25, 1781. In Criminales contra Nicolas Catari y otros indios. AGI, Charcas 603,12; Confesionde Sebastiana Mamani, p 25; Carta de Lus Palacio y Santelices a Geronimo de Ruedas, Santiago de Cota-gaita, March 9, 1781. AGI, Charcas 596, 22; Causa de Augustn Solis. La Plata, March 11, 1781. AGI, Charcas594, 21; Dn. Pedro Antonio Zernudas oidor dela Rl Audiencia de la Plata informa oidor dela Rl Audiencia dlPlata informa a V.M. haber echo la prision de Dr Gregorio de Merlo Cura de la Doctrina de Macha. La Plata,March 12, 1781. AGI, Charcas 594, 5; Informe de Josef Atanacio Baspineyro. Potosi, March 14, 1781. AGI,Charcas 437-b, 1; Parte de Jose Resegun al Virey de Buenos Aires, sobre la sublevacion de la Provincia deTupiza. Tupiza, March 18, 1781. In Vol 1, Documentos historicos del Peru en las epocas del coloniajedespues de la conquista y de la independencia hasta la presente, M. de Odriozola, p 348.

104 Relacion traxica, p 2; Relacion verdadera, p 85; Relacion historica, p 29.105 Confesion de Mariano Quispe. In Sumaria informacion recibida de varios indios de Chocaya como

sindicados en la sublevacion. Chichas, November 23, 1781. ANB, SGI.1781.10, 45.


373


24/26

106 Carta de Felix Villalobos a Geronimo Manuel de Ruedas, Cochabamba, Feb. 24, 1781. AGI, Charcas 596,7; Actuaciones anteriores, pp 5, 87, 99, 144; Relacion delos hechosmas notables, 206; Representacion deFelix Josef de Villalobos, p 7; Re

Documents

Robins - Genocide and the Great Rebellion