I can’t figure out who discovered Lake Titicaca.
Several sixteenth-century documents provide important information on the economy, society, political structure, language, and culture of the Titicaca region immediately after the Spanish Conquest. Of course, the general histories of Bernabé Cobo, Cieza, Guamán Poma, and others are invaluable when we control for and understand the effect of Inca and Spanish biases. Other documents include the official inspections, or visitas, conducted by the Spanish Crown. Two of these are particularly useful: the Diez de San Miguel Visita and the Francisco Toledo Tasa. Another document, Historia del Santuario de Nuestra Señora de Copacabana by Ramos Gavilán, written in 1621, also provides important data from the Copacabana Peninsula region. The official report of a royal inspection of the Lupaqa province made by Garci Diez de San Miguel, an official of the Spanish Crown, represents one of the finest Spanish Colonial–period documents of the Andes. In many ways, this Visita represents the first comprehensive ethnography of a major ethnic group in the Titicaca Basin. Arriving in the basin in 1566–1567, Diez de San Miguel sought to document the status of the people in one of the principal señoríos, or principalities, of the region. The Lupaqa were one of the few ethnic groups in the Andes not granted to individual Spaniards in encomienda (Murra 1964). This rich and powerful indigenous polity was maintained as a Crown holding directly under royal control and protection. Unlike other native populations under the encomienda system, the Lupaqa paid taxes directly to the Spanish Crown and therefore maintained a relatively high degree of autonomy (Stanish 2000). This economic fact underlies the purpose of the Visita: Garci Diez de San Miguel was sent to record the population of ablebodied tributaries and determine earnings from herding, farming, and other economic activities in order to assess their capacity to pay taxes (Diez de San Miguel 1964 : x, 5, 10
more history starts on p.72The ancient name of Lake Titicaca is not known. Given the region's numerous and competing polities during the protohistoric period (the century or so before the European conquest), it is possible that the lake had no single, commonly accepted name even at the time the Spaniards arrived. The word titi is an Aymara term for puma (gato montes), according to Bertonio (1956 : Bk. 2: 353). It is also listed as meaning “lead” (plomo) (Bk. 2: 353) or as “puma,” “lead,” or “a heavy metal” in some modern dictionaries (e.g., de Lucca 1987: 155). The word caca or kaka is listed as “white or gray hairs of the head” (Bertonio 1956: Bk. 2: 32). The term k'ak'a is defined in a modern dictionary as “crack or fissure” or, alternatively, “comb of a bird,” as used in the Omasuyu province (de Lucca 1987: 90). Two of Weston La Barre's informants said that the proper name of the lake was titiq'aq'a, meaning “gray discolored, leadcolored puma,” based on a sacred carved rock found on the Island of the Sun (La Barre 1948: 208–209). Not all early named references of the lake include the term titi and/or caca. According to Diego de Alcobasa, the lake's ancient name was Chuquivitu (as cited by Garcilaso, Book III, chap. 1; and see La Barre 1948: 208). Chuqui is defined by Bertonio as “lance” (1956: Bk. 2: 93) and vittu is listed as the point (punta) of a hill (Bk. 2: 389). In modern usage, the large lake is occasionally referred to as Lake Chucuito, and the small lake to the south is called Huiñamarca. The large lake also is occasionally referred to as Lago Mayor, and the small lake as Lago Menor. A set of words in Bertonio's dictionary provides what I believe to be the key to the origin of the name Titicaca. Under the entry Thakhsi cala, Bertonio lists ― 47 ― the definition “piedra fundamental,” evoking theological themes (Bk. 2: 343; Bk. 1: 367). The word cala is consistently listed as “rock.” Thakhsi is defined as “horizon, or end of the earth” and as “cimiento.” I believe the most logical explanation for the origin of the name Titicaca is that it is a corruption of the term thakhsi cala, the fifteenthto sixteenth-century name of the sacred rock on the Island of the Sun (Bauer and Stanish 2001). The Island of the Sun was, and occasionally still is, also known as Isla Titicaca, the name often used by the early Spanish writers. And the name of the sacred rock area was used for the island as a whole. Therefore, the word thakhsi cala was corrupted into titicala and titicaca. Given that there was probably no common name for the lake in the sixteenth century, it is likely that the Spaniards used the name of the site of the most important indigenous shrine in the region, the Island of the Sun, as the name for the lake as well.
My thought exactly. They were busy capturing the entirety of south america and didnt care about creating a detailed narrative for everything. From the sources I posted it seems they mapped the population and other things from that area, so all they cared about originally was the important population data needed for governance.Maybe because the local history is already busted and Spain probably missed it while raping their way across South America, they didn't bother messing with its narrative until the 1970s. The attribution to Spain while also being vague tells me that it's bullshit. Well, just another load of bullshit anyway.
I get the impression that the history changers haven't had adequate time to do all the clean up they wanted. Sure they were busy bombing buildings, setting them on fire, bulldozing them and hurriedly re-writing history but there are only so many hours in a day and probably not all that many co- conspirators allowed in on the secret. I think they just haven't gotten around to tidying up all the lose ends. Of course, the placing of forbidden, incriminating sites have been placed under the DO-NOT-TOUCH control of UNESCO until they can get around to sanitizing the rest so some time was "bought" with that move.What has been striking me lately is how much is not being studied. I’m reading that Lewis and Clark book and it seems no one wants to go dig up a North American mound or two. If I had one on my property I’d dig it up, but of course I’d tell no one.
We have a couple of shelves right in sight with a small collection of arrow heads, some inherited Indian stuff And fossils we’ve found. It’s struck me that if a state or federal department person visited they could conceivably seize the stuff.
They are busy giving the impression they have a handle on history, archaeology, etc. but the topic has barely been touched.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Request: Cast iron production in the United States 1840-1880||Investigation Requests||2|
|Request: Medieval Throne Sizes||Investigation Requests||0|
|Two interior pictures with stories, requesting clarification and input||Photographic Analysis||5|
|Request: Alzheimer - is it a tool to erase the memories of the older population?||Investigation Requests||43|
|Request: South American Philippopolis-city. Any info?||Investigation Requests||13|
|Request: Cast iron production in the United States 1840-1880|
|Request: Medieval Throne Sizes|
|Two interior pictures with stories, requesting clarification and input|
|Request: Alzheimer - is it a tool to erase the memories of the older population?|
|Request: South American Philippopolis-city. Any info?|