Talk:Andean civilizations

Indigenous peoples of the Americas Top‑importance

	Indigenous peoples of the Americas portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Peru Top‑importance

This article is supported by WikiProject Peru. This project provides a central approach to Peru-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.PeruWikipedia:WikiProject PeruTemplate:WikiProject PeruPeru

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Peru To-do:

Assess and prioritise articles (log)
Check for copyvios at Special:Contributions/Priscilla D, tag as {{Db-copyvio}} where appropriate
Create:
Expand: new articles; top importance articles
FAC / FLC: Peru national football team
GAN:
Merge requests: Amazonas before the Inca Empire, Chachapoyas culture
Review: Shining Path, Universitario de Deportes
Translate: National University of San Marcos
Work on Lima, the current article improvement drive
Wikify: articles needing attention

South America Top‑importance

	Latin America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Name of the people / Name of the empire

The article uses the word Incas to refer to the people of the empire. But in Bolivia, it's common knowledge that only the emperor was called the Inca. The people are referred to as the Quechuas. Thus, the word "Inca" should only refer to the emperor, or to the entire empire. --MiguelMunoz (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are several ethnic groups referred to as Quechuas of which the Incas were just one. You can find numerous references to the Incas as an ethnic group in 16th and 17th century chronicles among other sources. --Victor12 (talk) 14:20, 100 August 2008 (UTC)

NO! The term "Inca" applied only to the nobility of Cuzco. In fact; a Colla warlord named Chuchi Capac, who ruled in the Lake Titicaca basin, once adopted the name "Inca" for himself. Pachacuti then had the false "Inca" beheaded in Cuzco during his welcome-home party, after the real Inca's swift conquest of the Colla.

The people who ruled over by the Incas were not themselves called Incas. The nobility would fiercely defend their royal title. However, the invading Spanish conquistadors would refer to all as Inca, in their "we know everything, you're an unworthy savage" condescending attitude all Europeans had towards all native peoples during that time. They simply did not care if the nobility held a separate title than the commoners. Canationalist (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The King was called the sapa inca, the people were referred to as incas but now in modern days they refer the sapa inca as "the inca" and still incas to the civilization. Darksorce (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Requested move of Aztec and Inca

Please discuss this move here-- LYKANTROP ✉ 14:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is an 'expand' template justified?

Comments?

Inca versus Inka

It seems as if scholars are increasingly using the spelling "Inka" instead of "Inca" (e.g. Hyslop, J. "Inka settlement planning." University of Texas Press, 1990). As I understand it, the spelling change is the result of orthographic disagreement. Namely, the justification for the shift is that use of a "c" is a relic of Spanish colonialism and the "k" spelling is closer to the pronunciation in Quechua. If no one has a problem with it, I will indicate that Inka is an accepted spelling. Eventually, the whole article may have to be converted to "Inka Civilization," but I don't think that would be a good idea at this point because "Inca" is still more common than "Inka" and it is not evident that "Inka" is destined to supplant "Inca" as the dominant spelling.(December, 2008)

Jokes in First Paragraph

In the first paragraph of this article, there is a reference to "the Kishawn of Cuzco", with a link. There is no such thing as a Kishawn of Cuzco. Because Kishawn is a common first name, I assume that this is a joke. Judging from later text in the article, "the Kishawn of Cuzco" probably should be replaced by "the city state of Cuzco". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stenik (talk • contribs) 13:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, removed. It has been there since 28 Oct 2008. It was added as part of a far less subtle piece of vandalism that was then partially reverted to simply "Kishawn of Cuzco" by the same IP which is presumably why it didn't flag as obvious vandalism. How it has remained this long is a mystery though, there are probably loads of school teachers marking essays wrong for referring to it as that since then. Mfield (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the name Emma in the first paragraph for the same reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.43.62 (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's a technical meaning of "support group" (in which case it should be tagged), saying that the Inca civilization started out as a support group calls to mind a bunch of Incas gathering in a church basement for free coffee to talk about how rough it is being addicted to chewing Cocoa or something.

"Hi, my name is Kishawn and I'm a chewer..." "Hi, Kishawn."

Makes it kinda difficult to take the article seriously.71.101.164.169 (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy between discussion of medical advances here and in Inca Empire

In the 'Mathematics and Medicine' section here, it says:

They performed successful skull surgery, which involved cutting holes in the skull to release pressure from head wounds[citation needed]. Though very few lived through this ordeal some amazingly survived.

This is VERY different from what is said in the Inca Empire article, in which it is stated:

Anthropologists have discovered evidence which suggests that most skull surgeries performed by Inca surgeons were successful. In pre-Inca times, only one-third of skull surgery patients survived the procedure. However, survival rates rose to between 80 and 90 percent during the Inca era, from A.D. 1400 to 1532.

This statement references the article here [1]. Obviously, this isn't a primary source (the actual study mentioned would be better), but I'd say that the truth is probably a long way from "very few lived" and "some amazingly survived."

I believe we should use the language from the Inca Empire, and I'll change it in a bit, as long as there are no objections. --Elowan (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don Mancio Serra de Leguisamo's testimony

I am against taking out the words of the aforementioned conquistador from their psychological and historical context. The Inca Empire was not the Paradise on Earth: there was an exploitation of the lower class, predatory wars against neighboring countries, cruel rituals, and so on. Don Mancio was one-sided in his will. This is not POW or own research, but the pure fact. POW is to only show one side of the coin and avoid its reverse. A good Wikipedia article must be balanced and objective.Mazarin07 (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted Facts

I forgot the works, so I am including this on the talk page, but to according accepted contemporary scholarship the Inca king that ruled before the civil war that Pizzaro stepped into had died of Small Pox. Additionally, one aspect of the incan method of rule was that they would transplant newly conquered peoples to different parts of the kingdom, a practice which would unsettle the newly conquered people and keep them from rioting. The Incans also believed that Huacas(special spirits) inhabited special objects. After the Spanish conquered the Incas, the priests would try andburn these huacas in an attempt to get rid of devils. This was difficult, however, because anything could be an huaca. Additionally, the Incans had a practice of giving the lands and wealth of the recently deceased king to his family, which gave a tremendous incentive to his successor to expand, because he began his reign with no resources. Also, the incans believed in reciprocity as a method of governance. A portion of this, called the encomienda system, was later abused by the Spanish, who would use it to send thousands of former-Incans to mines to mine Quicksilver.Thesupersfox (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)thesupersfox[reply]

Population size

According to this reference: Chepstow-Lusty A, Jonsson P (2000) Inca Agroforestry: Lessons from the Past. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment: Vol. 29, No. 6 pp. 322–328, there were 30 million people in the Inca Empire. Not sure where to put this information in the context of the article. Hires an editor (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ritual War

I have changed the phrase "ritual war" to "civil war" because both the Wikipedia article linked two and the source referenced later in the paragraph call the war a civil war and do not use the word ritual. Does anyone know why the phrase was originally used? Uityyy (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot I don't understand about the authorship of a lot of the Inca related articles. Most don't have sources. And there's some things I haven't heard before, either, but at the same time, I'm just getting my feet wet with a lot of this stuff. Hires an editor (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monumental Architecture Cleanup

Most of the section 'Monumental Architecture' is a discussion of whether the Inca had a hand in the construction of the Easter Island heads. The part that has to do with Peru is disjointed and largely unhelpful. Hires an editor (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by D150potter (talk • contribs) [reply]

simple spelling error

May be trivial, but "form" is misspelled in the Society section, under Politics and Government, section 3... "The two halves of the ayllu would from* separate customs and rites and would form separate units in the army but would remain on good terms with each other socially, taking part in feasts and mock battles." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphaomega618 (talk • contribs)

Thanks. You can edit most articles now but this is semi-protected, so you couldn't edit it because you are brand new. When your account is 4 days old and you've made over 10 edits, including the one above, you'll be able to edit semi-protected articles and have other privileges you don't have now. Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split and merge with Inca Empire

Although there is a popular usage of the term "Inca civilization" it appears that much of what is attributed to Incas was in place before the military expansion, for example pottery.[2]. In general the article largely overlaps with the subject of Inca Empire. Nowadys "Inca civilization" is used for any widepsread cultural aspects within the former empires borders, this like to call the ancient cultures of mesopotamia for "Assyrian civilization". I would suggest to split this article merging some parts with Inca empire and stating a Andean civilizations (there is already a category with this name) article to cover up the rest. Dentren | ^Talk 09:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in academic literature Andean civilization is the preferred term. We should definitely make the switch. --Victor12 (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. The only real disagreement seemed to be over where material should be cut from and merged. The preference seems to be for maintaining this article, at the new name, about Andean civilizations in general, while splitting information specifically about the Inca to a new article to be created at Inca civilization. Since all of the redirects pointing at Inca civilization include the word "Inca", I haven't changed them to point here. If a new article at Inca civilization isn't started soon, there are bots that will "fix" those redirects, and point them here. Therefore I recommend that someone get an Inca article started soon. It's a good article to have around, anyway. - GTBacchus^(talk) 08:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inca civilization → Andean civilizations – User:Dentren 06:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Oppose; no reason given. Powers ^T 17:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons are given in the previous section. --Victor12 (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give some examples of the academic literature that you mentioned in the previous section? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sure. 1 (Chapter 1), 2 (Chapter 1), 3 (Chapter 3), 4 (Chapter 1) and there are plenty more. --Victor12 (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to move - per resons given above "Inca civilization" described here is not Inca (also which other "civilization" have only lasted 150 years?). Dentren | ^Talk 10:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be moved to Andean civilization, not Andean civilizations. --Victor12 (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since Norte Chico civilization is considered a civilization by its own (references in article) then there is no single "Andean civilization". The Andes might be singel "macro-cultural region" but not a single civilization. Consider the long timespans and distances between the flourishing coultures of the Andes (Caral, Moche, Tiawanaku, Inca).Dentren | ^Talk 13:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the same argument could be made about the Chinese or the Western civilization... There are academic references for Andean civilization and Andean civilizations though it seems to me the plural is more commonly used in older publications or those written for the general public whereas the singular is more commonly used in current academic works. --Victor12 (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway any of two options is better than Inca civilization. As I see it there is substantial contemporary usage of the plural (Andean civilizations) and this together the additional complexity that that name implies would make it a better option than the singular Andean civilization. No? Dentren | ^Talk 10:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The sources Victor provided (and a my own layman's google search) has convinced me that this is the term most commonly used in academic literature. However, I do not feel confident enough to express a preference for either Andean civilization or Andean civilizations and will leave that for others with more knowledge on the subject to debate. Jenks24 (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a new article should be built called Andean civilization(s), since this article focuses only on the Inca tribe, its Empire, and descendants. Most of this should probably be in the Incan Empire article. However, "Andean civilization(s)" is a much broader topic, and should be a separate article, as most of this would end up merged into Incan Empire, so a fresh start should be done. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That "oppose" is very much like to agree on what have been proposed in the section above (split, merge and move) which is the ground for the proposal of the section. Dentren | ^Talk 08:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I do not think the edit history of this article should be moved. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - It appears there's something like a consensus that there should be two articles, one on the Inca Empire, and one on Andean civilizations in general. We're suggesting that we move this article to Andean civilizations, and split and merge any content that pertains only to the Inca Empire, leaving room to develop this article as an overview of the various civilizations. Is that right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Dentren | ^Talk 12:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, pretty much. --Victor12 (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split into two articles, one called Inca Empire and another for all Adean civilizations. Flamarande (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chavin de Huantar

This seems to be missing? I would have thought it should be in there somewhere.Mattun0211 (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Expansion of that new section is still needed. Chiton magnificus (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andean civilizations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Andean civilizations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andean civilizations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904200841/http://en.amigosprecolombino.es/cultures/central-america-and-intermedia/venezuela to http://en.amigosprecolombino.es/cultures/central-america-and-intermedia/venezuela

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BC/BCE/AD/CE mixing

No reason for the mixing of BC etc. Switching to a consistent format. – S. Rich (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) 19:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]