Talk:Battle of Puná
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
i find some language use very interesting, referring especially to the battle of puna.... such emotional discriptions seem only to deceive... but what do i know. Notes:
- the use of the Quechua Tahuantinsuyu to refer to the Inca Empire seems pretty counterintuitive, especially given that the former now redirects to the latter. Fixed.
- It's unclear that the plural of "Inca" is singular in construction. Until this can be conclusively proven either way, I'll revert Zenyu's edits to avoid confusion (I use "the Incas" to denote Quechua inhabitants of the Empire and "the Inca" in reference to the monarch, as does Prescott - this distinction may become important later in the campaign). Albrecht 17:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Inca, like sheep, is plural as well as singular. But if you think "Incas" is clearer in this case, you wouldn't be the first to use it. I was just trying to be make the word usage more consistent across the pages that use the word. I think you may be right in this case, Inca as in emperor and Inca as in people is an annoying ambiguity in itself. Zenyu 19:40, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
The article relies exclusively on the Spanish chronicles for its account of the conquistadors' superior weaponry single-handedly overcame the vast disparity in numbers between the conquistadors and the Incas. However, the Nova episode "The Great Inca Rebellion," aired in 2011, reanalyzed one of the battles of the Spanish conquest using forensic and legal history evidence. Although the exact battle was not specified, it probably has parts that apply to other battles, including Puná, if it was a different battle. Among the statements in the episode was "The chronicles try to justify the conquest. And in order to magnify the glory of the Spaniards, they exaggerate." In other words, we can't trust what the chronicles.
The episode covered the discovery of wounds discovered on the battlefield consistent with steel weaponry like what the conquistadors brought. However, it also mentioned that the vast majority of injuries found at the site were blunt force injuries more consistent with New World weaponry.
I'm not aware of any source that provides any evidence for an alternative explanation of the Battle of Puná to that of the Spanish chronicles, in the absence of which no alternative theory should be presented in this article. However, there is published work that calls into question the reliability of those chronicles and their specific agenda that could have led to outright distortion of the record. Should the questions about the accuracy of the chronicles be simply mentioned, with a possible link to a source that discusses it in more detail?