THE INDIAN CASTE OF PERU, 17 95-1940 — KUBLER 



31 



quanda, and dated January 10, 1796. 25 It is 

 incomplete for our purposes, for it contains no 

 mention of the provinces of what is today the 

 Department of Puno in southern Peru. These 

 provinces in 1795 were no longer part of the 

 Viceroyalty of Peru, but had passed to the juris- 

 diction of the Audiencia of Charcas, in the Vice- 

 royalty of Buenos Aires. The census of 1795 is 

 also defective in its tabulations for the northern 

 provinces. The figures for the Intendency of 

 Trujillo are identical with those given about 1788 

 by Bishop Martinez de Compafi6n. 26 Otherwise 

 the census appears to have been based upon pro- 

 vincial tax registers similar to those of the period 

 1826-54. 27 



Although purporting to represent the size of the 

 population of Peru in 1795, the figures of this 

 census are in general closely similar to those of 

 earlier census report dated 1792. This also was 

 prepared for Viceroy Taboada y Lemos by the 

 Inspector General, Jorge Escobedo, whose ac- 

 tivity as a tax expert has already been mentioned. 

 Jorge Escobedo 's report is public only in an extract 

 by Vargas Ugarte, 28 so that we have to rely on the 

 full figures, classified by race and status, as pub- 

 lished by Fuentes. 



Table 4 presents the substance of the census of 

 1795. The political divisions are not the same 

 as those of the early Republic. It therefore 

 seemed advisable to keep the figures for 1795 

 separate from those of later periods. The political 

 divisions nevertheless are the same as those de- 

 scribed by Dr. Cosme Bueno. 29 The work of Dr. 

 Bueno is the basis of our map of late colonial 

 Peru (map 1). It serves to illustrate a number of 



m Brief remarks on this census by Area Parro, in Cento National, 1940, 

 vol. 1, p. xxix. On Colonial demographic reports in general, see Fuentes, H., 

 1917, and Kubler, 1946, pp. 334-340. 



M MS. in ANB, Martinez de Compafion, Baltasar Jaime. 1782-89. Plate 

 No. 3 is entitled "ESTADO que demuestra el numero de Abitantes del 

 Obispado de Truxillo del Peru con distincion de castas formado por su actual 

 Obispo." The MS. in the Biblioteca del Palacio, Madrid, contains the same 

 table as No. 5 in vol. 1. This table has never been published, although men- 

 tioned by Domfnguez Bordona, 1936. 



" Of the tax registers of the late eighteenth century, only one survives to 

 present knowledge. It is preserved in the archive of the Foreign Office in 

 Lima, and relates to the Indian population of Lampa Province in 1797. The 

 report is incomplete. RR. EE. 5-29. "Revisita o Matrieula de Indios 

 del Partido de Lampa Jurisdiccion del Gobierno e Intendencia de la Prov» de 

 Puno. Formado por el D. D. Jose Mariano Clemente Peralta de Peralta 

 y Valdez . . . [Iniciada en 4 de junio de 1797]. Tomo 2." 



» Vargas Ugarte, 1938, vol. 2, pp. 370-371. Escobedo's figures reappear in 

 another version about 1793, commonly attributed to the traveler Taddeo 

 Haenke (Haenke, 1901) . On the incorrect attribution of this work to Haenke, 

 see Vargas Ugarte, 1935, vol. 1, p. 24. 



" Bueno, 1763-78. (For further bibliographical description of this work, 

 see Schwab, 1948, pp. 35-38.) 



points, when adjustment is made in respect to 

 later provincial boundary changes. 



Table 4. — The census of 1795 



Intendency and Province 



Lima: 



Cercado 



Canete 



lea 



Yauyos 



Huarochlri 



Canta 



Chancay 



Santa 



Trujillo: 



Trujillo 



Lambayeque 



Piura— 



Cajamarca 



Huamachuco 



Pataz_ 



Chachapoyas 



Arequlpa: 



Arequipa 



Camanl 



Condesuyos 



Collaguas (Cailloma) 



Moquegua - 



Arlca 



Tarapaca 



Tarma: 



Tarma... 



Jauja 



Cajatambo 



Huaylas 



Conchucos.- 



Huamalles 



Huanueo 



Huancavellca: 



Huancavelica 



Angaraes 



Tayacaja 



Castrovlrreyna 



Huamanga: 



Huamanga.- 



Anco... 



Huanta 



Cangallo 



Andahuaylas 



Lucanas— 



Parinacochas 



Cuzco: 



Cuzco 



Abancay. ... 



Aimaraes.. 



Calcaand Lares 



Urubamba... 



Cotabambas 



Paruro --. 



Chumbivilcas 



Tinta ---. 



Qulsplcanchls 



Paucartambo 



Added total 



Tert total 



Total 



62. 910 

 12, 616 

 20, 576 



9,574 

 14,024 

 12, 133 

 13, 945 



3,334 



12,031 

 35, 193 

 44, 491 

 62, 196 

 38, 150 

 13, 508 

 25,398 



37,241 

 10,023 

 20, 110 

 13, 905 

 28,197 

 18, 726 

 7,973 



34. 911 

 52, 286 

 16, 872 

 40, 822 

 25,308 

 14,234 

 16, 826 



5,146 

 3,245 

 13, 161 

 9,365 



25,821 

 2,022 

 27,337 

 12, 474 

 12,020 

 15, 725 

 16,011 



31,982 

 25,259 

 16,281 

 6,199 

 9,250 

 19,824 

 20,236 

 16, 973 

 34,968 

 24, 337 

 12, 973 



1,076,122 

 1,076,122 



Indians 



9,744 

 7,025 

 6,607 

 8,005 

 13,084 

 10,333 

 7,500 

 873 



4,577 

 22, 333 

 24,797 

 29, 692 

 17,117 



4,627 

 12, 504 



5,929 

 1,249 

 12,011 

 11,872 

 17, 272 

 12, 820 

 6,456 



18,821 

 28,477 

 10,500 

 20,935 

 9,899 

 8,957 

 7,598 



3,803 

 2,691 

 9,020 

 8,385 



20, 373 

 1,744 



16, 981 



10,011 

 5,000 



12, 700 

 8,475 



14,254 

 18,419 

 10, 782 

 5,519 

 6,164 

 18,237 

 15, 034 

 11,475 

 29,045 

 19, 947 

 11,229 



608,902 

 608, 894 



Percent 



of 



total 



Others 



15.49 



55.68 



32.11 



83.61 



93.3 



85.16 



53.78 



26.18 



38.04 

 63.46 

 55.73 

 47.74 

 44.87 

 34. 25 

 49.23 



15.92 

 12.46 

 59.73 

 85.38 

 61.25 

 68.46 

 68.43 



63.91 

 54.46 

 62.23 

 51.28 

 39.11 

 62.93 

 45.16 



73.9 

 82.93 

 68.54 

 89.54 



78.9 



86.25 



62.12 



80.25 



41.6 



80.76 



62.93 



44.57 

 72.92 

 70.56 

 89. 03 

 65.83 

 91.99 

 74.29 

 71.84 

 83.06 

 81.96 

 86.56 



56. 68 



53,166 

 5,591 



13, 969 

 1,569 

 940 

 1,800 

 6,445 

 2,461 



7,454 

 12,860 

 19, 694 

 32,504 

 21, 033 



8,881 

 12, 894 



31,312 

 8,774 

 8,099 

 2,033 



10,925 

 5,906 

 2,517 



16,090 

 23,809 

 6,372 

 19, 887 

 15, 409 

 5,277 

 9,228 



1,343 

 554 



4,141 

 980 



5,448 

 278 

 10, 356 

 2,463 

 7,020 

 3,025 

 7,536 



17,728 

 6,840 

 4,499 

 680 

 4,086 

 1,587 

 6,202 

 4,498 

 5,923 

 4,390 

 1,744 



467, 220 

 467, 220 



Percent 

 of 



total 



84.51 

 44.32 

 67.89 

 16.39 

 6.7 

 14.84 

 46.22 

 73.82 



61.96 

 36.64 

 44.27 

 52.26 

 65.13 

 65.75 

 50.77 



84.08 

 87.54 

 40.27 

 14.62 

 38.75 

 31.54 

 31.57 



46.09 

 45.64 

 37.77 

 48.72 

 60.89 

 37.07 

 54.84 



26.1 

 17.07 

 31.46 

 10.46 



21.1 



13.75 



37.88 



19.75 



58.4 



19.24 



47.07 



65.43 

 27.08 

 29.44 

 10.97 

 44.17 

 8.01 

 25.71 

 28.16 

 16.94 

 18.04 

 13.44 



43.42 



THE CENSUS OF 1836 



The census of 1836 was the earliest attempt 

 under Republican government to base a count 

 upon the tax registers (Paz Soldan, 1877, p. xxi). 

 Unfortunately it is valid only for the northern 

 Departments, and not for all provinces there. In 

 the southern Departments the compilation merely 

 repeated the viceregal figures of 1795. The census 

 of 1836 was published only as an appendix to the 

 annual almanacs of the period, without caste 

 classifications, and with immense territorial la- 



