Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Reinventing the Inca Past: The Kingdom of Quito, Atahualpa and the Creation of Ecuadorian National Identity

2010; Routledge; Volume: 5; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/17442221003787076

1744-2230

Nicola Foote,

Indigenous Cultures and History

Abstract This article examines the efforts of historians and archeologists to rethink the role of pre-Columbian indigenous civilizations in the Ecuadorian past in the context of the ambiguity over the Inca legacy generated by rising nationalist tensions with Peru. The article focuses on the debate over the Kingdom of Quito, argued by the Jesuit Priest Juan de Velasco in his classic 18th-century text to have been a culturally advanced and technologically sophisticated civilization that occupied the territory north of Quito for centuries prior to the arrival of the Inca, and to have ferociously resisted their invasion. The idea of the Kingdom of Quito formed a key part of nationalist mythology during the 19th century, but came under scientific attack in the early 20th century as archeological methods advanced. This challenge to the foundational legend came at the very moment that the conflict with Peru over the Amazonian border made it more politically important than ever to trace resistance to Peruvian encroachment back through time. This article traces the political and intellectual dynamics of the scholarly debate, examining the racial and nationalist concerns that lay behind state interventions. Keywords: National identityintellectual productionhistory and mythologyborder conflictindigeneityAtahualpa Acknowledgements Thanks to Marc Becker, Joanna Crow, Rebecca Earle, Seth Garfield and the LACES reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of this article. Notes Notes [1] This is epitomized by Simón Bolívar's famous quote: 'We are not Europeans, we are not Indians, but a middle group, between the indigenous and the Spanish, Americans by birth, and Europeans by right' (cited in Radcliffe & Westwood, 1996 Radcliffe, SA and Westwood, S. 1996. Remaking the Nation: Place, Identity and Politics in Latin America, London: Routledge. [Google Scholar], p. 10). [2] Peruvian nationalists have interpreted these same data in different ways, emphasizing that the expedition was funded by Pizarro, and thus that its authority came from Lima. [3] For overviews of the diplomatic and military details of the escalating conflict, see Ayala Mora (1995 Ayala Mora, E. 1995. "Breve reseña del conflicto territorial del Ecuador con el Peru". In Tiwintza: La dignidad de un pueblo, Edited by: Ortiz Brennan, B. 13–24. Quito: Fundación 'José Peralta'. [Google Scholar]), St. John (1994 St. John, RB. 1994. The boundary between Ecuador and Peru. Boundary and Territory Briefing, 1(4): 79–84. [Google Scholar]) and Tobar García (1982 Tobar García, J. 1982. Historia de límites del Ecuador, 4th, Quito: Colección Tesis. [Google Scholar]). [4] Indeed, prior to the settlement of 1998, producing or selling a map without the Rio Protocol line was considered traitorous, and subject to a jail sentence of up to 16 years. See Radcliffe (1997 Radcliffe, SA. 1997. Frontiers and popular nationhood: geographies of identity in the 1995 Ecuador–Peru border dispute. Political Geography, 17(3): 273–293. [Google Scholar], p. 283). [5] Some of the most important examples of this literature include Bonilla (1999 Bonilla A. (ed.) (1999) Ecuador-Perú: Horizontes de la negociación y conflicto, FLASCO, Quito. [Google Scholar]), Palmer (1997 Palmer, DS. 1997. Peru–Ecuador border conflict: missed opportunities, misplaced nationalism and multilateral peacekeeping. Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs, 39(3): 109–148. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), Wood (1978 Wood, B. 1978. Aggression and History: The Case of Ecuador and Peru, Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International/Institute of Latin American Studies, Columbia University. [Google Scholar]) and Zook (1964 Zook, DH Jr. 1964. Zarumilla-Marañón: The Ecuador–Peru Dispute, New York: Bookman Associates. [Google Scholar]). For contemporary accounts and responses, see Bowman (1942 Bowman, I. 1942. The Ecuador–Peru boundary dispute. Foreign Affairs, 20(4): 757–761. [Google Scholar]), Jaramillo Alvarado (1941 Jaramillo Alvarado, P. 1941. La guerra de conquista en América, Editorial Jouvin: Guayaquil. [Google Scholar]), Larrea Alba (1964 Larrea Alba, L. 1964. La campaña de 1941: La agresión peruana al Ecuador, sus antecedentes históricos, políticos y militares, Quito: Editorial Casa de la Cultura. [Google Scholar]), Rodriguez (1943 Rodríguez, L. 1943. La agresión peruana de 1941, Quito: Edit. Fr. Jodoco Ricke. [Google Scholar]) and Wright (1941 Wright, LA. 1941. A study of the conflict between the republics of Peru and Ecuador. The Geographical Journal, 98: 253–272. [Google Scholar]). [6] Est. Tip. 'Sucesores de Rivadeneyra', Madrid, 1893, Catalogo general de la Exposición Histórico-Americana de Madrid, 1892, Tomo 1, Section J, pp. 8–10. [7] This is by no means an exhaustive list of pro-Velasco authors, and there were many others from various ends of the political and intellectual spectrum, but these represented those whose works seem to have been most widely read and circulated. [8] Informe del Comisión del Consejo Superior de Instrucción Pública, June 1918, Mensajes e informes, 1918, ABFL. [9] Informe del Ministro de Instrucción Pública a la Nación, 1918, Mensajes e informes 1918, ABFL. [10] It would be interesting to see to what extent the mythology has been embraced by the contemporary indigenous movement, but unfortunately such an analysis is beyond the scope of this article.