[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.))

Well, what can I say!  It's Christmas day, the children are playing, and then 
I find this tender note:

In article <59pt14$o12@news1.io.org>, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>Thanks for looking up those refs.

As seen in the rest of your post, you really do not mean this, do you?

>Domingo Martinez-Castilla (agdndmc@showme.missouri.edu) wrote:
>: 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? 

Science, I guess?  That is why I look for references.  Besides you (because  I 
am sure that Carter, wherever he is, will accept Itier's and other linguists' 
interpretation when handed to him), I do not know anybody else claiming that 
Atawallpa's name was in anyway related to chickens.  Ooops..  Sorry, I forgot 
padre Jose de Acosta, who wrote in... 1589?  Acosta, by the way, also made, 
and announced, the discovery that Andean people had a local name for --of all 
things-- eggs!  This may be a big one, Mr Kuchinsky, as I am hinting to you 
for several weeks now!  Eggs do not remain viable after transoceanic travel 
thus, following Acosta, I would investigate (independently of course) that 
evidence, for they sure were brought to the western hemisphere by people, 
because you would not pretend that the natives of this land could have 
invented such a complex biological entity, would you?  Forget about birds and 

Any way, you are left alone, again, naturally (nice song, huh?) with nothing 
to say but value judgments, as we will see. Period.  Fini. Kaput.  If you have 
any one reference sustaining either of the following:

1. Atawallpa *was* a chicken, or at least was named after one.
2. Andean peoples used chickens for cultic purposes (besides eating them, of 
course).  Early cultic use, just in case, lest you come up with a picture of 
my papa holding a fighting cock of Asian and English breeds.

Poor thing!  No references!

>: 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?

Gimme one for the Andes, puleeeze?  (Again, early.)

>: 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?

Because obviously linguists know more today about this than you do.  That's 
it.  Get it?  My "opinion" is no law.

Let me try to guess...  Are you treating Acosta as if he were a biblical 
source, verbatim?  If that is the case, I cannot (as if I could have before!) 
argue anything with you.

>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... 

The Spaniards called llamas and alpacas "carneros de la tierra" for at least 
200 years.  And foreigners in Kechwa were and still are called Wirakochas. In 
American English, maize is called "corn", and bison is called "buffalo", 
Triticum is called "wheat" even though it was not domesticated by 
Anglo-Saxons.   The French call computers "ordinateurs".  Obvioulsy, you 
cannot grasp the linguistic tenet that it s very common to use old words to 
name new things.

>Domingo wrote:
>: 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. 
and then Yuri replied:
>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.

I provided two unknown to Carter and (obviously) to you.  How many have you 

And nice language. Puleeze?  I have remote access only to current (1990 to 
date) data bases, and I could not find a George Carter's mention in the 
appropriate places (i.e. archaeology, history, botany, etc.).  I would be 
delighted if you could tell me his address, so I can send him the references 
re Atawallpa's name.

(By the way, I only work at the U of Missouri, my last course work and comps 
having been 8 years ago.  And anyway, I would take advice of how to get 
references by almost anyone else but you.  You just deny that anything that 
contradicts your *beliefs* is worthy of credibility.)

>Well, do some more research, as you obviously missed a few things this

I keep doing it, Mr Kuchinsky, because I just like to be closer to the truth.

By the way, besides invectives and denials, you have not added a single bit of 
knowledge since you first announced Carter's article on chickens.  Nothing. 
Nada. Niente. Hakuna.  You keep repeating yourself or qualifying Carter of shy 
and not assertive enough (bending backwards, you said?)

Bye bye.


Domingo Martinez Castilla

Follow-Ups: References: