Re: Amerindian navigators

["Larry J. Elmore" <ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net>]

Domingo Martinez <agdndmc@showme.missouri.edu> wrote in article
<5s5cbl$1l2g$1@news.missouri.edu>...
> In article <01bc9dec$d68f75e0$486700cf@ljelmore>, "Larry J. Elmore" 
> <ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net> wrote:
> 
> Me:
> >> What is not clear here is the word "cañas", which in Spanish is used
to 
> >> name bamboo-like stems
> <snip me>
> 
> Larry:
> >A heavily-loaded balsa would have the logs nearly submerged and awash,
> >leaving the "bamboo" and "rattan" or "wicker" (I _know_ those aren't the
> >precisely accurate terms, but they are the most descriptive terms that
will
> >be most widely understood) superstructure by far the most visible
portion.
> 
> I am sorry I did not translate, but the chronicler is talking also about
the 
> "quilla", or "keel", being made of "cañas"  which as far as I know it is 
> always underwater.  I thought you knew it all the way, because in your
long 
> post of 22 Jul 97 you quote the same segment of the chronicle, albeit 
> likelytranslated from Spanish into Norwegian into English, I suppose, as
your 
> only source seems to be Heyedrahl's books. That is why I quoted from the 
> Spanish source itself. (I may have wrongly assumed you know Spanish).  
"Your" 
> translation gives "cañas" as "logs"  which I find curious.  That may be a

> common translation, though, as Murra himself uses it.  

I'm afraid I don't know Spanish. This is just an interest of mine that I
don't have enough time to devote to (among several others) between school
(computer science) and work (to pay for school). Thanks for the
clarification. I'd really like to know what was being described. Luckily
there are other sources, and some very good drawings from not too many
years later. Since this was the first contact with a South American balsa
that was being described, I don't think the Spanish had yet encountered
balsa logs? If they hadn't, they might not realize just how amazingly light
the stuff is; and seeing how much weight those logs were carrying, I wonder
if they might have first assumed those logs were some kind of very large
bamboo (i.e., hollow)? I don't know.
 
> >The Spanish chroniclers of this period are hardly the most attentive to
> >detail except when it comes to gold and royalty.
> >
> Larry, I am now  confused about your value judgment of the Spanish 
> chroniclers.  First, in July, you typed several pages worth of
second-hand 
> chroniclers' passages to support Yuri's, Heyerdahl's (the provider of
said 
> posting) and, I suppose, your own points of view.  And now you dismiss
them 
> handily.  I may suspect you do not know too much about them, except
perhaps 
> what you have read in Heyerdahl's book. (We may be tempted to believe
that you 
> are following not only Yuri's beliefs, but also his valuable scholarly 
> methods.  I really hope not.)  I do not intend, as you did, to throw a
value 
> judgment on the chroniclers as a whole, but for whatever it is worth,
they are 
> it!  Independently of how much we like or hate  them, we have to use
them.  
> And of course they are not all the same: Cieza is basically a naturalist
and 
> polymath, and respected by Tyrians and Trojans, and his contribution to
our 
> knowledge is beyond any doubt.  Like him, there are many others that have

> given us a lot of information.  Of course, it is not smart at all to take
them 
> verbatim.

No, of course not. What I meant is simply that the chroniclers can be
infuriatingly vague and incomplete on some subjects, _not_ that they're
unreliable about what they _did_ write about (except perhaps tales of rich
golden kingdoms just over the horizon... :) I think that there's enough
evidence from the various accounts (and archeology) that there was a
thriving maritime economy in place at the time of the conquest (and long
before), but it seems clear that this mostly escaped the attention of the
Spanish. I'm not nearly so familiar with the original Spanish accounts as
you are, but it seems to me that the later, more marine-oriented English
and Dutch visitors took much more interest in the maritime technologies and
skills of the natives, at least until Juan and Ulloa in the 18th century.

> >Nor did the Spanish care very much about them one way or the other, so
> >they're hardly going to waste much effort describing things of no
> >consequence to them. I don't think the early chroniclers mentioned them
at
> >all except at the very earliest contacts and early Spanish uses of them
> >when their own watercraft were noticeably inferior for the purpose at
hand.
> >Once they were hot on the trail of gold and empire, they pretty much
forgot
> >about everything else.
> >
> Again: this is pure value judgment, and it suggests --I am sorry to say--
some 
> lack of familiarity with Spanish chroniclers.  Of course they were
interested 
> in gold and such, but that does not mean they did not write about
anything 
> else.  I would also believe that besides the common phrase "there was xxx
of 
> gold and yyy of silver in this place" most chroniclers just go about 
> describing *other* things, from natural to cultural, from aesthetic to 
> religious.  And of course they had prejudices, biases, and such;
otherwise 
> many historians would be out of a job.

Yes, I simply meant to say that this appeared to be a subject about which
they cared very little.

> >> 3. Chincha traders
> ..
> >> The main trade object was the
> >> "mullu" shell (mainly Spondylus), trade that goes way before Inca
times.
> >In 
> >> any case, she states that the trade was made with the Huancavilcas of
> >today'
> >> Ecuador.  The Chincha traders took mainly copper. They would go as far
> >> as Mantas and Puerto Viejo, in Ecuador, where they would get the
shells.
> >> It seems that the trade to areas North of Ecuador was in the hands of
> >> the "mindalá" traders of that area.  I do not have information on
trade 
> >> with the Pacific coast of today's Colombia and further north.
> >
> >This is pretty much what is stated in "Pyramids of Tucume".
> >
> Meaning....?  No Amazing Yuri's Amazing Maritime Chincha Civilization? 
Never 
> mind...

Nope. Unless there was good reason to go farther north to trade, why should
they? There doesn't appear to have been a good reason to me. I'm sure a few
did just to see what they could find, but that was all.
 
> My basic point is that the trade route by Andean traders stopped at the 
> latitude of today's Ecuador, and from there the mindalá trade took charge
of 
> going further North.  The Cuná people you mentioned previously never
referred 
> to meeting regularly with Andean traders, but of course knew about them
from 
> word of other traders.  This does not discard that Andean navigators *
could* 
> (as in having the capacity or the curiosity) reach further North: only
that 
> the evidence so far does not support that regular trade occured.

Agreed.

Larry