Talk:Caral–Supe civilization

Compact list of civilisations?

The article and others linking to it paint a very black and white picture of Norte Chico being one of six ‘original’ civilisations. Granted there is no universal agreement on a cutoff between other advanced cultures and civilisations, and as far as broader zones of civilisation are concerned, the oldest massive jump representing the Andean-Peruvian coastal region should get a serious mention, but why is eg Danubian cultures not included? This list of six is hardly a scholarly consensus and the subjectivity involved should at least be emphasised.

Otherwise, what black and white criteria include Norte Chico but not eg Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, which had an even more probable form of proto-writing, proto-currency, visual arts galore, apparently larger settlements by population, ceramics, etc., technologies that Norte Chico lacked? They also had large-scale architecture, though admittedly their largest known temple is puny in comparison. Is it then the scale of monumental architecture that is taken as defining? Should this be clarified? Harsimaja (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Caral Civilization

The legal name is Caral Civilization stated by the Peruvian Government (Ministry of Culture). Moreover, the most common name is Caral Civilization because it's used in any translated materials for tourists who came to Peru. Moreover, Ruth Shady who is the founder and director of the archaeological project at Caral, named Caral Civilization.
What is more, here there are many section referring to this topic:
Talk:Norte_Chico_civilization#Archaeology
Talk:Norte_Chico_civilization#An_issue_with_the_title_of_the_english_version_of_this_article
No one has pointed out any argument in opposition to those points even though that past long time. According to Wikipedia:Consensus#In_talk_pages: Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. So, that situation afforded to do the changes following the Wikipedia rules.Jjrt (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Ruth Shady Solis's publications were of Caral-Supe: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It is also false to state the the official Peruvian position does not include Supe: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

You're replying to an out-of-context comment. The article has (finally!) been changed to "Caral-Supe", but when Jjrt wrote, it was called "Norte Chico", which is what he wanted to have changed. You can see the section below in purple, it talks about this change! 212.97.248.219 (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

FA sweeps

Tagged as needing update for recent research. The article should be expanded with this research. Eg [3][4] looks to contain a lot of information about political structure that is not covered in the article. (t · c) buidhe 01:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Norte Chico civilization → Caral civilization – It's been suggested in multiple places that the article's name should be changed; see above for an argument for "Caral civilization" and here for "Caral" or "Caral-Supe civilization". In terms of Google Scholar, the results since 2010 are:

• "Norte Chico civilization", 35
• "Caral civilization", 28
• "Caral-Supe civilization", 12

The trend does seem to be going towards Caral or Caral-Supe, the former is the official name used by the Peruvian government, and is far more common in Spanish than Norte Chico (per Google Scholar). I express no opinion. (t · c) buidhe 08:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Ping people I know to have expressed opinion on the article name: Jjrt, SandyGeorgia, and 83d40m. (t · c) buidhe 08:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I support strongly that the name of the article be changed away from "Norte Chico" and note that combined, the two other alternatives outnumber it. Without personal preference, I would support the name the government uses, "Caral", but understand the desire for "Caral-Supe" from the anthropological perspective. Let's see what the other editors choose. Do not understand where to register a "vote". Appreciate notification to participate, thanks. Please continue to alert me to activity on this. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Caral-Supe civilization is my preference. Google results are distorted by the usurpation of Shady Solis's discovery by the Americans, and by the fact that Wikipedia has an article on the city of Caral, while Caral-Supe redirects to Caral. The naming of articles on Wikipedia impacted the overall naming controversy and affects Google results. The civilization was beyond Caral. UNESCO calls it Caral-Supe, and so did Shady Solis in her publications: [5]. Also, it is inaccurate to position the Peruvian government as excluding Supe: [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  PS, Buidhe, should the name be changed during the FAR, I will get all the pieces in the right place re moves, etc; articlehistory does not need to be changed. (Noting that changes being made to the article are not heading in the direction of a Keep at FAR, as editing has not been at FA standard.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Caral-Supe civilization does look best, per UNESCO, Sandy's link from the Peruvian government, and the work of Shady Solis. Hog Farm _Talk 15:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I have no opinion as to the name change, but would like to point out that in the Wikipedia Commons, the name for the relevant category is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Caral-Supe . Currently, the Commons page is incorrectly linked to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Caral . So somehow this also needs to be adjusted. Eio-cos (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chronology

From the history section:

The radiocarbon work of Jonathan Haas et al., found that 10 of 95 samples taken in the Pativilca and Fortaleza areas dated from before 3500 BC. The oldest, dating from 9210 BC, provides "limited indication" of human settlement during the Pre-Columbian Early Archaic era. Two dates of 3700 BC are associated with communal architecture, but are likely to be anomalous. It is from 3200 BC onward that large-scale human settlement and communal construction are clearly apparent. Mann, in a survey of the literature in 2005, suggests "sometime before 3200 BC, and possibly before 3500 BC" as the beginning date of the Caral-Supe formative period. He notes that the earliest date securely associated with a city is 3500 BC, at Huaricanga, in the Fortaleza area of the north, based on Haas's dates.

Two problems with this:

1. Charles C. Mann is not an archaeologist. He is a journalist, who interviewed archaeologists to write 1491. And sometimes he goes off on a tangent and attempts to speak on his own behalf which is where that otherwise decent introductory book begins to fail. The point is, he shouldn't be cited in this context as if he were a primary researcher.

2. I don't have 1491 on hand right now, but I do have Hass' paper which is cited here, and that's not what it says at all. It mentions nothing about Huaricanga being the earliest city, and in fact he gives 3200 - 2500 BC as the range for the proliferation of monument building and citymaking, nothing earlier. He even mentions that "it is unlikely that which site was ‘first’ can ever be known" .

Unless anyone has any informed objections, these claims are going to have to be thrown out. TangoFett (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)