Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:01:42.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Reappraisal of the Sources of Inca History: The Works of Ake Wedin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

Magnus Mörner
Magnus Mörner*
Affiliation:
Queens College, City University of New York, New York, N. Y.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A. Wedin’s Works in General

Although the history of the Inca empire has received more attention from scholars and laymen than almost any other aspect of Latin American history, the state of research is far from satisfactory. The writings of generations of students of Inca history have deposited thick layers of myths. It is urgently required that these layers be removed before any serious historical reconstruction can be undertaken. However, the task is risky. Perhaps only quagmire is to be found beneath.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , October 1968 , pp. 174 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1968 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 La cronología de la historia incáica. Estudio crítico. (Madrid: Insula & Gothenburg: Instituto Ibero-Americano, 1963. Pp. 86); El sistema decimal en el imperio incáico. Estudio sobre estructura política, división territorial y población. (Madrid: Insula & Gothenburg: Instituto Ibero-Americano, 1965. Pp. 107); El concepto de lo incáico y las fuentes. Estudio crítico. Summary in English. (Uppsala: Akademiförlaget, Studia Historica Gothoburgensia, Vol. VII, 1966. Pp. 138).

2 Vansina, Jan, Oral Tradition. A Study in Historical Methodology (Chicago, Ill., 1965)Google Scholar.

3 Wedin’s analysis of the relationship between four rather early chronicles is scrutinized in H. Anderson’s article in the present issue.

4 Rowe, John H., “Absolute Chronology in the Andean Area,” American Antiquity, X (Menasha, Wisc., 1945)Google Scholar. His chronology has been accepted by most students of Inca history and is often quoted.

5 Refers to Rowe’s account in Steward, J.H. (ed.), Handbook of South American Indians, II (Washington, 1946), p. 184 & passim Google Scholar.

6 See Barrenechea, Raúl Porras, Fuentes históricas peruanas (Lima, 1955), pp. 109–117 Google Scholar.

7 See, for instance, Radicati di Primeglio, C., “Introducción al estudio de los quipus,” Documenta, II: I (Lima, 1949-1950), 324–325 Google Scholar.

8 “Declaración de los quipucamayocs a Vaca de Castro,” Colección de libros y documentos referentes a la historia del Perú, ser. II, vol. III (Lima, 1921). Cf. Porras Barrenechea, op. cit., p. 339.

9 Vansina, op. cit., p. 104.

10 See Zuidema, R.T., The Ceque System of Cuzco (Leiden, 1964), pp. 222–223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 228, 392–393 & passim.

11 Espinosa, Antonio Vázquez de, Compendio y descripción de las Indias Occidentales (Washington, 1948), pp. 514, 529Google Scholar.

12 Wedin, Concepto, p. 45.

13 Wedin, Cronología, pp. 53–57. He refers to Arnoldsson, Sverker, Los momentos históricos de América según la historiografía hispanoamericana del período colonial (Madrid & Gothenburg, 1956), pp. 63–64 Google Scholar. Arnoldsson defines “the-great-man-theory“ as “la teoría de la importancia del héroe, esto es, la opinión de que los progresos políticos y culturales de la humanidad se han hecho en momentos distintos y por obra de algún hombre destacado.”

14 Chronicler Cristóbal de Molina (del Cuzco) states that the Indians kept perfect record of past events thanks to their quipus, “aunque no con tanta puliçia como despues que Ynga Yupanqui (= Pachacútec) empeço a señoriar y conquistar esta tierra . . .” Colección de libros y documentos referentes a la historia del Perú, I (Lima, 1916), p. 15.

15 In his account of Cieza (Concepto, pp. 51–52) Wedin does not comment on Rafael Loredo’s controversial edition of some chapters from the “lost” third part of Crónica del Perú in El Mercurio Peruano, nor does he discuss the relationship between Cieza and Pedro la Gasca.

16 It is true that the question whether Tomebamba (Cuenca) was founded by Pachacútec (Cieza I) or by Tupac Yupanqui (Cieza II) is mentioned by Wedin (Cronología, p. 43), but he does not attempt any systematic comparative study of the two parts of Crónica del Perú.

17 Wedin did not consult Santo Tomas’ two works, Grammatica o arte de la lengua general del Perú and Lexicon o vocabulario de la lengua general del Perú, both issued in facsimile ed. in Lima in 1951 with foreword by R. Porras Barrenechea. If he had, Wedin would not have translated “hunu” with “incalculable” (Sistema, pp. 47, 73) but with “10.000,” a detail of certain importance in his discussion.

18 See, for instance, Porras’ foreword to Grammatica, p. xiii; Fernández, Manuel Giménez, “Las Casas y el Perú,” Documenta, II: I (Lima, 1949-1950)Google Scholar.

* The Universal Decimal System, or Brussels Classification [Editor’s Note].

19 Zuidema, op. cit. In Sistema, pp. 32–34 Wedin discusses the lack of agreement among the chroniclers with respect to the different numerical groups in Inca organization. This disagreement seems rather natural in the light of Zuidema’s hypothesis.

20 Wedin, Sistema, p. 41.

21 Esteve Barba, F., Historiografía indiana (Madrid, 1964)Google Scholar is a useful survey but it does not fill the need for profound and sophisticated research on sixteenth century chronicles. There is also the problem of stereotypes and the impact of the philosophy of history of the time. See Arnoldsson, op. cit.