In this forum, four scholars re-examine the noble or commoner status of Indigenous Andean chronicler Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala. They debate the validity of his assertions and how the conditions of his life should frame our reasoning. They re-consider how written documents were used in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. A handful of archival documents generated by petitions and lawsuits fuels this scholarly reconsideration of his lineage, local status, and economic circumstances. These court cases enliven the study of this fascinating historical figure who wrote a long letter to the King accompanied by hundreds of line drawings. In the first article in the forum, historians Adrian Masters and Jorge Cañizares-Esguerra shape the discussions over Guaman Poma’s rank and status into a debate. They unequivocally declare Guaman Poma a commoner who unsuccessfully attempted to use an increasingly document-oriented colonial system to gain power and official recognition. They assert that this commoner Lázaro was an imposter whipped for falsely asserting an Indigenous elite heritage (cacique). They argue that Lázaro’s commoner status further elevates his historical importance for the study of the early modern era. In two responses to these assertions, historians Francisco Quiroz Chueca and José de la Puente Luna point out the many ways scholars have already been raising questions about Guaman Poma’s identity, and they voice caution about how much the existing documents can definitively resolve these questions. In a rebuttal, Masters and Cañizares-Esguerra return to underscore why they think Guaman Poma was an “uncommon commoner.”