[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Atawallpa was no chicken (It was Re: chicken in America: from Asia? (cont.))
- Subject: Re: Atawallpa was no chicken (It was Re: chicken in America: from Asia? (cont.))
- From: email@example.com (Yuri Kuchinsky)
- Date: 25 Dec 1996 00:37:56 GMT
- Followup-To: sci.archaeology.mesoamerican,sci.archaeology
- Newsgroups: sci.archaeology.mesoamerican, sci.archaeology
- Organization: Internex Online (shell.io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
- Xref: news.missouri.edu sci.archaeology.mesoamerican:3777 sci.archaeology:38442
Thanks for looking up those refs.
Domingo Martinez-Castilla (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
: (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
: 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.
So? Some people think chickens have something to do with their names, and
some people think they doesn't... Who's the judge?
: I will ellaborate : after remembering a part of Mr Kuchinsky's "essay
about the chicken".
: >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
: >limits of credulity...
: There is no mention of chickens being used in religion.
There's plenty of evidence in Carter that they were used in religious and
cultic contexts. There's also plenty about use in cockfighting, etc. How
did you manage to miss it?
: Itier mentions that the verbal root wallpa- has completely disappeared
in : today's Kechwa, but had been originally translated by the early
missionaries : as "create". After presenting several different uses of
the root, Itier : advances that the common value of wallpa- would be (my
translation) "to : provide somebody or something with what is needed for
a determined goal". : Thus, the title "runa wallpaq", assigned to
Wirakocha, the creating deity in : the Andean pantheon, can be understood
as "who provides [all] for men".
: To this verb, there was a corresponding noun, wallpa, "known in a
reduced : number of contexts", meaning "what is given to someone for a
purpose". In only : one case, Itier follows, wallpa designs a person that
is given something: ataw : wallpa, which means "blessed in war", as ataw
is "fortune in the war". This : is, then, the meaning of Atawallpa's
name, which makes a lot of sense.
: One should not be suprised at Acosta's belief that the word "wallpa"
for : chicken predated the arrival of the Spaniards. Even though a very
important : jesuit, he was late in the Andes and was no linguist. He was
a careful : observer and wrote extensively about his observations, and
advanced many : insightful interpretations, but in this case he was just
You think so? And why your opinion should be the law?
You still have to explain why the natives have their own names for
chickens, why these names are connected with Asian names linguistically,
why all the cultural connections, and a few things like this...
By the way, one useful thing to consider when looking for bones: if
chickens were primarily used cultically, as was often the case according
to Carter, then their numbers would not have been so great -- they would
not have been a food staple. This certainly may explain why they may have
been overlooked in excavations.
Great logicians like Paul P. keep harping about how there were no
chickens among the Mayans. And then he's using this as proof that there
were no chickens in the Americas! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the science
of logic has been reborn!
We know that the Mayans did not have chickens. I think archaeologists
should try to look for chickens where they may have been, instead of not
finding them where they were not -- and making a big deal out of this!
: I do not know anything about George Carter. I have not been able to find a
: book authored by him, nor any of his credentials.
This just shows how skilled you are in finding refs. Not. What do they
teach you in school? There are books and articles by Carter aplenty.
: But to take Acosta's word : (1589-90) as an indication of chickens
being in the Andes in pre-Columbian : times reveals, at the least,
carelessness, and at the most, wishful thinking : that should not be
allowed when advancing serious proposals. All his : "evidence" is full
of interpretations without any additional research.
Well, do some more research, as you obviously missed a few things this
#% Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto %#
-- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku --
Welcome to President Bush, Mrs. Bush, and my fellow
astronauts ====== Vice President Dan Quayle