[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Atawallpa was no chicken (It was Re: chicken in America: from Asia? (cont.))
(Followups limited to sci.archaeology.mesoamerican,sci.archaeology)
This note presents some data on the meaning of the Kechwa (the Inca language)
term "wallpa", which as a noun today means "chicken" o, more commonly, "hen".
For starters, the names of Atawallpa (commonly spelled Atahualpa), his brother
Inti Titu Kusi Wallpa (who changed his name into Waskar after claiming the
title of Inca, or emperor), and his other brother Tupac Wallpa, have
absolutely nothing to do with chickens or any other birds. I will ellaborate
after remembering a part of Mr Kuchinsky's "essay about the chicken".
I do understand that this is only one of the arguments advanced by George
Carter's article in "Man across the sea", but as Mr Kuchinsky gave every one
of them full credence, it is important to show the level of scholarship he
likes to depend on.
In article <58s1k6$k8b@news1.io.org>, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
>The case of the Incas is extremely curious. When the Spanish arrived
>to Peru, they found chickens extremely well established and widely
>used in religious rituals. The name of the last Inca, Atahualpa is
>connected with the word "chicken". Also the name of his uncle.
That "extremely well established" is a pure value judgment. They found
chickens (as I supported with a quote of a Diego de Trujillo chronicle), but
note that they arrived in the Central Andes almost 40 years after the
Spaniards have set foot in the mainland, i.e. plenty of time to reach, by
local trade.
>
> Either these men were named after the chicken, or the chicken
> was named after them. Garcilaso de la Vega says that the
> chicken was named in memory of Atahualpa so that each time the
> cock crowed, he would be remembered. This leaves unexplained
> the naming of Atahualpa's uncle. (p. 200)
>
This last sentence is illogic, as it has been shown here.
>Can we really believe that the Incas would be not only accepting
>this domesticated animal instantly -- but also integrating it into
>their religion and government instantly? This really strains the
References: