﻿374 
  SOUTH 
  AMERICAN 
  INDIANS 
  [B. 
  A. 
  E. 
  Bull. 
  143 
  

  

  debtor 
  could 
  assign 
  arbitrary 
  values 
  of 
  goods 
  to 
  the 
  fixed 
  scales 
  of 
  mon- 
  

   etary 
  pay 
  and 
  tribute 
  with 
  impunity. 
  Among 
  the 
  Indians, 
  further- 
  

   more, 
  whose 
  notion 
  of 
  property 
  was 
  in 
  terms 
  of 
  tangible 
  objects, 
  such 
  

   as 
  lands, 
  crops, 
  or 
  herds, 
  all 
  shared 
  communally, 
  the 
  idea 
  of 
  a 
  money- 
  

   value 
  presented 
  serious 
  difficulties. 
  

  

  Property. 
  — 
  The 
  Indian 
  sense 
  of 
  property 
  can 
  best 
  be 
  understood 
  

   by 
  reference 
  to 
  pre-Conquest 
  customs 
  regarding 
  inheritance. 
  It 
  was 
  

   a 
  loose 
  arrangement, 
  in 
  which 
  the 
  appointed 
  successor 
  to 
  an 
  estate 
  

   provided 
  from 
  its 
  revenues 
  for 
  the 
  support 
  of 
  the 
  family 
  of 
  the 
  deceased. 
  

   The 
  heirs 
  possessed 
  the 
  estate 
  in 
  common 
  without 
  dividing 
  it, 
  and 
  the 
  

   property 
  was 
  administered 
  by 
  a 
  representative 
  of 
  the 
  ayllu 
  concerned. 
  

   Yet 
  no 
  heir 
  could 
  claim 
  a 
  share 
  of 
  the 
  harvest 
  unless 
  he 
  had 
  taken 
  part 
  

   at 
  its 
  sowing 
  (Santillan, 
  1879, 
  p. 
  2-709; 
  Polo 
  de 
  Ondegardo, 
  1873, 
  

   pp. 
  162-63). 
  These 
  customs 
  persisted 
  long 
  after 
  the 
  Conquest, 
  

   although 
  Europeans 
  often 
  interfered, 
  imposing 
  a 
  written 
  testament 
  

   designating 
  heirs 
  of 
  their 
  own 
  choosing. 
  

  

  What 
  was 
  true 
  for 
  inheritance 
  was 
  true 
  for 
  property 
  in 
  general. 
  

   Land 
  belonged 
  to 
  the 
  people 
  who 
  sowed 
  the 
  crops 
  in 
  it; 
  property 
  was 
  

   a 
  function 
  of 
  participation 
  in 
  the 
  labor 
  of 
  production 
  (Polo 
  de 
  Onde- 
  

   gardo, 
  1873, 
  p. 
  164). 
  The 
  Spanish 
  concept 
  of 
  property, 
  however, 
  as 
  

   derived 
  from 
  the 
  Roman 
  laws 
  of 
  absolute 
  individual 
  ownership, 
  was 
  

   only 
  partly 
  intelligible 
  to 
  the 
  Indians. 
  The 
  Spaniards, 
  while 
  encour- 
  

   aging 
  the 
  differentiation 
  between 
  rich 
  Indians 
  and 
  poor 
  Indians, 
  frus- 
  

   trated 
  the 
  incipient 
  sense 
  of 
  private 
  ownership 
  by 
  the 
  administrative 
  

   compromise 
  of 
  imposing 
  tribute 
  exactions 
  upon 
  whole 
  communities 
  

   rather 
  than 
  upon 
  individuals. 
  

  

  When 
  a 
  curaca, 
  for 
  instance, 
  had 
  attained 
  the 
  wealth 
  necessary 
  to 
  

   acquire 
  the 
  standard 
  symbols 
  of 
  prestige, 
  such 
  as 
  saddle 
  horses 
  and 
  

   breeding 
  stock 
  and 
  firearms, 
  he 
  was 
  forbidden 
  to 
  possess 
  them 
  by 
  

   sumptuary 
  laws. 
  A 
  viceregal 
  decree 
  of 
  1557 
  restricted 
  Indian 
  owner- 
  

   ship 
  of 
  draft 
  animals 
  to 
  one 
  mule 
  or 
  horse 
  per 
  tributary, 
  and 
  the 
  pos- 
  

   session 
  of 
  firearms 
  was 
  illegal 
  at 
  all 
  times 
  (Anonymous, 
  1889, 
  p. 
  167; 
  

   Montesinos, 
  1906, 
  1:250). 
  Contradictory 
  social 
  objectives 
  were 
  im- 
  

   plicit. 
  The 
  Spaniards 
  were 
  anxious 
  on 
  the 
  one 
  hand 
  to 
  encourage 
  the 
  

   growth 
  of 
  a 
  responsible 
  sense 
  of 
  individual 
  property 
  among 
  the 
  

   Indians, 
  and 
  on 
  the 
  other 
  hand 
  to 
  impose 
  caste 
  limits 
  upon 
  Indian 
  

   ownership. 
  The 
  communal 
  tax 
  or 
  tribute 
  assessments, 
  which 
  were 
  

   not 
  supressed 
  in 
  Peru 
  until 
  the 
  constitutional 
  guarantee 
  of 
  1854 
  (Torres 
  

   Saldamando, 
  1879-80, 
  p. 
  440), 
  faithfully 
  reflect 
  the 
  nature 
  of 
  this 
  

   contradiction. 
  

  

  Debt-servitude. 
  — 
  The 
  system 
  of 
  debt-servitude 
  affected 
  the 
  lives 
  

   of 
  free 
  Indians 
  at 
  home. 
  In 
  the 
  18th 
  century, 
  it 
  was 
  designated 
  as 
  

   repartimiento, 
  or 
  reparto 
  de 
  efectos, 
  and 
  its 
  administration 
  was 
  in 
  the 
  

   hands 
  of 
  the 
  corregidores. 
  This 
  18th-century 
  usage 
  for 
  the 
  term 
  

   repartimiento 
  has 
  nothing 
  to 
  do 
  with 
  the 
  16th-century 
  usage, 
  signi- 
  

  

  