User talk:Lathistorian

Welcome!

Hi Lathistorian! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hi Lathistorian! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Chiefdoms of Hispaniola and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia: it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalism

Stop removing the indigenous name of Haití from articles. The Taino name of Hispaniola was Haiti, Babeque or Bohio, as reflected in the primary sources from the 16th century, including Historia de las Indias, Historia del Almirante & De orbe novo decades, all of which are cited on articles.

Any future acts of vandalism will result in a block. Tektonson (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that “Haiti” was the original indigenous name for the entire island of Hispaniola reflects a fundamental misreading of both historical and linguistic sources. While it is accurate that “Ayiti” (alternatively spelled “Haiti”) was a name used by the Taíno, its referent was geographically limited, most plausibly to the mountainous regions of the island. It did not denote the island in its entirety. In contrast, early primary sources indicate that the Taíno used other names—such as “Babeque” and “Bohío”—when referring to the island more broadly.

The works of early chroniclers, including Christopher Columbus, his son Ferdinand Columbus, Peter Martyr d’Anghiera, Bartolomé de las Casas, and Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo, provide corroborative evidence for this nomenclatural distinction. Among these, Historia del Almirante Don Cristóbal Colón (1537–1539), written by Ferdinand Columbus, offers particularly detailed testimony based on both direct observation and eyewitness accounts.

It is critical to underscore the unique authority of Ferdinand Columbus’s biography as a historical source. As Christopher Columbus’s second son and a key participant in the early colonial enterprise, Ferdinand had unparalleled access to his father’s personal narratives, ship logs, and oral recollections. The Historia del Almirante was composed with the explicit aim of preserving the legacy of Columbus from firsthand materials—many of which have not survived independently. This intimate access to both documents and direct communication with the Admiral makes Ferdinand’s account not only contemporaneous, but privileged. As such, it takes precedence over other secondhand or interpretive chronicles, including those by later historians who may have relied on fragmented or mediated information.

In Chapter XXVII of the biography (Cómo volvieron los cristianos, y lo que dijeron haber visto.), Ferdinand recounts the Taíno’s reference to the island using the names “Bochio” and “Baveche” (variously spelled depending on the translation read due to the orthographic inconsistencies of early modern Spanish). He writes:

“Los Indios . . . Preguntados después si tenían oro, perlas ó especería, hacían señas de que había grande abundancia hacia el Leste, en una tierra llamada Bochio, que es ahora la isla Española, que ellos llamaban Baveche que aún no se sabe de cierto por cuál entendiesen.” (Columbus, p. 121-122)

This passage explicitly connects the names “Bochio” and “Baveche” with what was then to be named La Española (Hispaniola). Ferdinand acknowledges some ambiguity in the native terminology, but nevertheless identifies these as the principal indigenous names for the island.

The subsequent chapter (XXVIII, Cómo el Almirante dejó de seguir la costa occidental de Cuba y se volvió a Occidente hacia la isla Española.) reinforces this identification. He writes:

“De repente el mismo día, que fué 13 de Noviembre, dio la vuelta á Oriente para ir á la isla que llamaban Bochio ó Baveche; pero por el viento de Norte que era muy fresco, se vio precisado á surgir en tierra de Cuba . . . Siendo avisado en este viaje Martín Alonso Pinzón por algunos indios que llevaba en su carabela de que en la isla de Bochio, que como hemos dicho asi llamaban á la Española, había mucho oro,” (Columbus, p. 124, 127)

Here again, Ferdinand Columbus unequivocally states that the natives referred to the island as Bochio or Baveche. The emphasis placed on these names across multiple chapters suggests a consistency in the indigenous nomenclature conveyed to the Spanish explorers, which challenges the anachronistic retrojection of “Haiti” as a pan-island designation.

The culmination of this terminological clarification occurs when Ferdinand narrates Columbus’s christening of the island. Observing its physical resemblance to Spain and its potential for resource extraction, Columbus decides to rename it in honor of the Iberian Peninsula:

“Viendo que esta isla Bochío era muy grande y la tierra y árboles semejantes á los de España, y que habiendo echado las redes desde los navios sacaron muchos salmones y otros pescados semejantes á los de España, determinó conformarla en el nombre y el Domingo 9 de Diciembre, la llamó Española . . . ” (Columbus, p. 131)

This passage once more refers to the native name as “Bochío,” (or Bohío) further solidifying the argument that this was the term conveyed by the Taíno to designate the entire island.

In contrast, the term “Ayiti” (or “Haiti”), while undoubtedly of indigenous origin, appears in early sources as a regional name—typically associated with the mountainous interior—but historically incorrect as a designation for the island as a whole. Later nationalist appropriations of “Haiti,” particularly following the Haitian Revolution, sought to reclaim and elevate this indigenous term as a symbol of sovereignty and resistance. While this was a politically and symbolically powerful gesture, it should not be conflated with the terminology used by the Taíno at the time of European contact.

In sum, the historical record, especially as preserved in the writings of Ferdinand Columbus and his contemporaries, supports the conclusion that “Bohío” and “Babeque” (with orthographic variants) were the names most widely used by the indigenous inhabitants for the island now known as Hispaniola. The identification of “Ayiti” as a name for the entire island reflects a later ideological construction rather than an accurate representation of pre-Columbian or early colonial nomenclature. Lathistorian (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that all the primary sources available, including the ones you cite, indicate that the entire island of Hispaniola was called “Haití”, “Bohío, and/or “Babeque”, and some add another: “Quisqueya”. The spellings of the names changed from book to book. Nevertheless, they remained the same sounding names. No primary source associates any specific name to any specific region of the island. The naming of the Saint-Domingue French colony in western Hispaniola as “Haiti” in the 19th century is irrelevant, as primary sources have established that “Haiti” (in its various forms) is one of the indigenous names for which the entire island of Hispaniola was known to the native Taino at the time of the arrival of the Europeans. Tektonson (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]