I've found this term "Quivira", both here and in an old journal by some explorer published in the 1500s. What I'm confused about if is "Quivira" is a term that was applied to the huge village that the explorers discovered, or if they never used that term to apply to the village and instead "Quivira" was a mythical place that they never successfully found.

  • 3
    Perhaps I'm missing something - isn't the question answered by the first line of the referenced article, "Quivira is a place named by explorer Francisco Vásquez de Coronado in 1541, for the mythical "Seven Cities of Gold" that he never found. " Quivira is a place; that place was named for a mythical place. Why doesn't that answer the question?
    – MCW
    Jul 23, 2020 at 16:47
  • Maybe I just can't understand the grammar of that sentence. Is it the place he found, or is it still the myth and not the place he found?
    – Village
    Jul 23, 2020 at 17:12
  • @Village It is both, but we don't know for sure where the actual place was. That's how I read it anyway.
    – Brian Z
    Jul 23, 2020 at 17:27
  • 2
    The explorer found a place and had to give it a name. He named the place after a mythical place. From taht point forward the word "Quivira" referred to both the new place (that had a location) and the mythical place. My sister is named after my grandmother; we've never had any ambiguity about which of them we're referring to. (not trying to be patronizing, I'm struggling to understand the confusion - once I understand that, things will probably clear up quickly)
    – MCW
    Jul 23, 2020 at 17:44
  • And, don’t confuse it with nps.gov/sapu/learn/historyculture/gran-quivira.htm in New Mexico
    – Jon Custer
    Jul 23, 2020 at 18:39