Jump to content

Talk:Nazca lines/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Pampa region

The pampa region linked to (around buenos aires, argentina) does not seem to be the pampa region mentioned in this article (southern peru).

Does anybody in Wikipedia remember Maria Reiche?

Maria Reiche dedicated all her life to take care and explain these lines and there is not a single line about her or her work. On the contrary there are references for ufologist, is this a serious work? Hard to believe that all crazy theories are mentioned here.

I have added a section on Maria Reich's work in preserving the lines--Crais459 09:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Remove below, is this archeological article or "Fortean Times"?

Others believe that the lines are a warning of something to come, a great calamity or the end of the the world. Some believe that the lines were intended as a warning - one of the drawings depicts a monkey with only 4 fingers on one hand. This sort of deformity would have been feared, although the lines' representation of animals is, at best, inaccurate. The shape of the lines, which forms an hourglass, may also support the idea that the lines represent some sort of countdown. It is also suggested that the lines are a large star map that details the future positions of stars, perhaps hinting at a cosmically-inspired calamity.

This article 5uxx0rd hard...=

I mean, jesus, the rotten dot com article was better (not like i'm surprised ;-)). I took some stuff from the spanish article, removed that heading, changed the order around, added some verifiable info (all figures are from the spanish article, converted to miles for the sake of a one unit article, even tho i prefer SI units) and tried to cordon off the whack-job UFO stuff into the "alternate theory" section, so as to not make the article too POV. As you can tell from this post, you know where my sympathies lie in regards to the whole space aliens thing. Honestly, it's the same thing iwth the pyramids; people just don't have faith in the ability of man to accomplish anything of value without introducing some whacky deus ex machina. Why can't you believe that ancient indians could scrape gravel off of white dirt! So strange. I think i'll go back and add a link to the rotten dot com article, which is hilarious, btw, and puts these UFO guys in their place. I also added the first picture you now see, although it's a cropped version of a creative commons pic. i just cropped out some empty desert. i don't know whether this is a violation of some kind, but I wasn't about to go through all that BS about mediawiki just to crop a pic. If there's a problem, I'm terribly sorry to the person whose vacation it came from (which i think is the actual source, from what i could gather from the spanish wikipedia) GuildNavigator84 11:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A new theory. Nazca lines were simple property lines or grazing lands divisions for herders.

1.The Nazca were herders. (http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/press/news/news07/press_516e.html) The pampa was grass lands due to warmer climate. I have lived in Bolivia for 17 years and the people are very organized. Similar pie shaped modern "nucleos" can be see in San Julian, Brecha Casarabe Quechua homestead area of Eastern Bolivia. This is simply the most effecient way to mark of boundry lines for property. (see from Google earth for resemblence (N. of Santa Cruz) The lines were simply trail lines used to lead animals to and from pasture to and from a central corral. As dessertification became more accute and limite pasture more valuable the community probably organized to adminster grass lands and laid off lines to orgainize grazing rights among clans or families or communities. Defined trails to a center corral would have reduced trail erosion, something all herdering cultures in dry areas are sensetive to.

That is my theory anyway. This could be studied by looking for remenents of higher salt content at the center of the "nucleos"(salt used for animal feed supplement), or higher organic content from manure build up. 74.195.50.163 05:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The animals were probably clan totems and used in ritual walking as discussed in the articleor were used to catch water as the glyphs at El Fuerte at Samaipata.

How were the lines discovered?

This article does not mention anything about how the lines were discovered by our modern civilization (Just like we know that Machu Picchu was "discovered" by Hiram Bingham). Anyone (with good sources) could add that info? --Abu badali (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Map image

Can you tell me something about the new map I added. thanks --– Emperor Walter Humala · ( shout! · sign? ) 16:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Having a map is no doubt very helpful; I can't comment on accuracy because I don't know where any of the things are. However, I'm guessing that the item labeled 'tiger' is mislabeled; more likely a jaguar? user:66.194.72.10

  • No, it's a dog. In fact, there's a picture of it labelled as such, further on in the article. Similarly, the image marked 'kiwi' on the map is, of course, no such thing. The image marked 'algae' is called 'tree' on other maps I've seen, although at least one could argue that its seaweed-like. I'm going to remove the link to the map, for the time being. Anaxial 19:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to those who believe it wasnt done by extraterrestrial beings

although there are some that doubt that man is incapable of doing things that are deemed as "impossible" one should consider some facts --- how is it that such a primitive tribe was able to construct such very large and quite proportionate pictures without seeing as a whole what they created being that the figures are only visible from a certain distance in the sky? ---how is it possible that the iron material used to construct the figures was 100% iron considering that 100% iron material is impossible to obtain? user:76.173.162.154

Though this is a silly place to discuss this, I can't resist. First of all, the article states that iron oxide, a far cry from pure iron, was used. Secondly, I'm no Nazca Indian, but I think even I could figure out how to make the approximate shape I wanted on a huge scale without seeing it. All it takes is a coordinate system-any spot that needed to be white, and the lines connecting them, can be drawn out in miniature and the distances beween two lines calculated. Then, all it takes is some very long ropes or accurate pacing to determines which spots need to be dug. I don't know if that's actually how the Nazca did it, but it is certainly one possibility. user:66.194.72.10

First of... Think about it.... You said all they need is rope.. But you're not thinking how long of rope you would need.... We're talking miles and miles... Who could or would construct rope that long? Then you said pacing.... Again... Miles and Miles... Years and years.... Not possible... Try again..

Even if making a rope that long were as hard as you claim, you could use a smaller piece of rope as a unit of measurement and use it several times to cover a long distance, making a marking in the sand every time you use one length of rope, I'm sure the Nazca could've figured that out. 69.251.246.75 14:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to read...

...more about the "extensive network of underground canals and waterways found dating from the same period." That's a nice little bomb to drop at the very end with no more info. Sounds about more interesting than the Nazca lines, doesn't it? Can someone add more info, or a link, or better still another article? Amity150 04:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

While these are interesting as an early example of fully covered irrigation canals in the Americas, there are older irrigation canals at [Cumbe Mayo] which show a much earlier example of a massive engineering project in the Americas. I'll see if I can't dig up some pictures of the Nasca irrigation system though. I personally don't view the Nasca lines as something significant on an engineering level, these would have been constructed using simple maths known in ancient America for millenia for building irrigation canals, but as art pieces they are impressive. Zenyu 22:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Any satellite images?

How comes that none of these images of birds and monkeys etc. can be seen on Google Earth? Are they too small or is the contrast too bad? If somebody has found them, a link here would be great! --'''''T'''d'''L''''' 12:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to find hte figures on Google Maps myself, but no succes. There are some lines and rectangles, but no animals to see. Can ano clear this up ? Is there an "oriantation" map of the area, so I could see where to look for each figure ? --90.157.176.111 12:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Need Help Made Major Discovery

I think I discovered the meaning of the needle and loom glyph... I need to know who to talk to, this is pretty big. No one has published anything about it, and it's very important. Nousoul 08:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is Maria Reiche, and who is Michael Vaillant?

As the article stands now, the work of history's most celebrated and long-standing mainstream Nazca researcher — Maria Reiche — receives barely one sentence of coverage. She is still a huge name in this subject (though apparently mostly wrong in her astronomical alignment theory), and a national hero in Peru for her pioneering work -- and yet her full name doesn't even appear in the article (except as part of the name of a foundation)!

On the other hand, a "recent hypothesis from Michael Vaillant" receives three paragraphs.

Who is Michael Vaillant, and why is his hypothesis worth bringing to the attention of Wikipedia readers? Leaving aside the merits of his idea (very poor, it seems to me), and leaving aside his qualifications (unknown, ) he is evidently a poorly known figure commenting from outside of Nazca archaeology: Google reveals only 62 wiki entries as hits for "Michael Vaillant"+nazca, most of them copied directly from this Wikipedia entry. (By comparison, "Maria Reiche"+nazca scores 34,300 hits, for good reason.)

The primary source for Vaillant's hypothesis, linked to in this Wikipedia article, is itself a wiki: something called U-Sphere, for which the "Contacter l'administrateur du site" listing is in fact Michael Vaillant.

This looks very much like original research, and should probably be cut entirely. (Or, at best, reduced to a single sentence.)

At any rate, the scant coverage of Maria Reiche's decades of on-site work and the heavy coverage of Vaillant's notion is a gross misrepresentation of the state of the field, and should be reversed. For now, I'm going to go ahead and cut the Vaillant material completely.

Loxton (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Horribly POV

This article is littered with unencyclopediatic italisized "why"s and unsourced POV statements that completely ruin the neutrality and tone of the article, and it almost completely lacks footnotes. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Map theory

According to Zoltan Zelko's theory the straight lines of Nazca Lines represent a specific type of map of the area where the Nazca culture has florished, with 1:16 scale. Crossing points of lines: emphasized objects (e.g. settlements, fortresses, etc.). Lines themselves are denoting the "watching directions" connecting these objects.

To prove his theory he could fit a certain area of the Nazca Lines (after magnifying it to 16 times of the original) very precisely onto the map of the area of Lake Titicaca. Crossig points of lines of the Nazca drawing perfectly fall onto contemporary or historical settlements (i.e. the ruins of the latter). There is a "technical certification" of the suitability of the cartographic techniques he has used by an independent expert in his book (see below).

Note: Zoltán Zelko thinks there is a substantial difference between the 2 subsets of Nazca figures: the simple geometric shapes and lines on one hand (that he interprets as a map) and the complex drawings (e.g. animals, plants) on the other hand.

He published his theory in the following book: Author: Zoltan Zelko Title: A kosivatag titka (Hungarian, means: Secret of the Desert) Publisher: Magveto Kiado, Budapest, Hungary, 1982 ISBN: 963 271 666 3 I have the book in Hungarian language. I do not know about any English or other language editions of this work.

Hungarian Television made a documentary film on his theory and Zoltan Zelko's trip to the Nazca Lines and Lake Titicaca in the 1980's that I have seen as a child. I have only the following additional information on the film: Director: Jose Andres Laczko Director of Photography: Karoly Boldizsar

As Mr. Zelko's theory is scientifically proven (in contrary to other hypotheses included in the current article) I propose to mention the "map theory" briefly in the "Purpose" section of the article and put this book into the "References" section. I would highly welcome your help in doing that if you think this is valid and reliable information.

Thanks, 84.3.77.113 (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Gabor

Maria Reiche

There is a very good but short chapter in Bruce Chatwin's, "What Am I Doing Here" (isbn: 0-224-02634-8)called "Maria Reiche: The Riddle of The Pampa". It was written in 1975 and gives a very interesting account of their meeting in the Peruvian desert, and may be worthy of a link/mention? Zalenka [[Special:Contributions/01:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Serious Refence Website

Please make this a link. It's the description of an Arthur C. Clarke Mysterious World episode which also covers the lines of Nazca. If Sir Clarke's work isn't a reference, then whose work is?

http://mysteriousworld.web.simplesnet.pt/episode5.htm


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.130.86.6 (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Okay, but you seem to be adding it to too many places that are not that pertinent... El_C 18:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Astronaut" is a Fisherman

Holding three fish in his right hand, a net in his left hand, wearing boots, and a hooded "raincoat". Any local could tell you this. The same fisherman symbol is used on pottery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.73.18 (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The correct spelling of the name is Nasca ....

...., not Nazca. Even articles within Wikipedia show such spelling.

Peruvian government site information about Nasca [1]

Or according to some sources, culturally related aspects are spelled Nasca, geographically related ones Nazca. eg [2]Doug Weller (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates

While the area span over several square kilometers, it would be interesting to point out this location, for being characteristic: -14° 41' 20.83", -75° 7' 22.60" (Decimal -14.689119, -75.122945‎) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.140.167.156 (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Shamanic Flight

There is no mention of the possibility of the use of shamanic flight in the creation of the lines; whether it be in the design process, or as part of the motivation to create the lines.

And what may "Shamanistic Flight" be? Flying mystics? Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fiction? Really?

Why is the 1968 book, Chariots of the Gods by Erich Von Daniken, listed in the "Fiction" section of this entry? Has his theory on the Nazca Lines been disproved recently?--Almightybooblikon (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a legitimate theory which should be added to the first part of the article. It' definitely not fiction. 78.98.175.172 (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC) wlad
It's certainly not fact and has no place in a serious article. Doug Weller (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
But if it's not written as fiction, it is not fiction, no matter how outlandish. Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Get over it, the book has been discredited many times over it is not a legitamnet theory, its just like Holy Bloo, Holy Grail or Roanoke by Lee Miller if you want to talk about these works as legitamnet go to a chatroom somewhere or hang out with potheadsIshmaelblues (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As someone that is just looking through the article, it'd really be nice to keep the unproven stuf out, but also believe that such things SHOULD have their own section, so we have oither people's thoughts to read if we want (like Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's, and each glyph is an evil god that has been sealed within the Earth).68.150.127.13 (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Kara Forrenz, March 18, 2009

Headline text

Does this paragraph make any sense


The Lines cannot resist heavy rain without being damaged."[4] However, Mario Olaechea Aquije, the archaeological resident from Peru's National Institute of Culture in Nazca, Peru, and a team of specialists surveyed the area after the flooding and mudslides occurring in the area in mid-February of 2007. He announces that "the mudslides and heavy rains did not appear to have caused any significant damage to the Nazca Lines," but that the nearby Southern Pan-American Highway did suffer damage, and "the damage done to the roads should serve as a reminder to just how fragile these figures are."[5]

Does this paragraph make any sense at all?...( The Lines cannot resist heavy rain without being damaged) Then it says after heavy fooding the Nazca lines were NOT DAMAGED...Then it even went on to say the Pan-American Highway was damaged by this flooding ?? Folks it does not take a genius to know highways ARE NOT EASILY DAMAGED by water..OK 2+2 tells me the lines are NOT easily damaged by water..

But hey lets just throw in a PC correct feel good sentence like ( "the damage done to the roads should serve as a reminder to just how fragile these figures are."[5]) At the end just for the heck of it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.226.93 (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

124.157, what part of the world do you live in? It's rather simplistic to say that highways are not easily damaged by water: it depends on the highway. A highway built on a hillside without proper drainage can be quite easily be damaged by water. The point seems to be that climate change may affect the frequency and severity of rainfall, and what has remained stable for some thousands of years may become unstable in a short period of time. That's not political-correctness, it's neutral reporting of a source - almost like Wikipedia. Feel free to balance it though, with a source stating that the figures are robust through geological time. Franamax (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fiction section

This seems basically a list of trivia, and I don't see how it contributes to the article. It even has claims about how accurate the detail is, clearly OR. It is already about 1/3 of the text. Doug Weller (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How about deleting it completely? --Victor12 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
A couple notable examples should be incorporated (not all of them) somehow, since they show the Lines are notable in that they've been popular subjects of fiction.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
They don't need to be shown as notable because they are used in fiction, they would be notable even without any fiction mentioning them. Doug Weller (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Doug, the lines are notable on their own, they don't need any fiction for added notability. Furthermore, as this is currently an underdeveloped article, such a large "In fiction" section seems WP:Undue weight. --Victor12 (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above - most or all of the Fiction section should be scrapped. I can add six book titles right now - all of which would be wrong, but if we accept OR, why can't I say that Shakespeare mentioned them? I'm not saying that the editors who added what they did were in bad faith, but OR is OR, and trivia sections are trivia sections. As Doug says, the lines are notable of themselves, mention in a comic book neither enhances or detracts from their notability.
The exception would be von Daniken, who was not setting out to write fiction, but was actually setting out to draw an (in)coherent worldwide synthesis. Chariots of the Gods I believe was a best-seller and thus qualifies as a notable inclusion in this article. The other entries are simple trivia. Not to give von Daniken's theory any credence of course (my alien mentor programmed me to stay quiet about the TRUTH :) - but the book certainly drew notable attention to the Nazca Lines. Franamax (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless many Wikipedia articles devoted to more recent human-made structures have a section that details appearances of the subject of the article in popular media. I think it a double-standard that many human-made structures and sites in the early modern and pre-modern historical era do not. Surely the Eiffel Tower and Neuschwanstein Castle being taken up in fiction "neither enhances or detracts from their notability" anymore than the same does in the case of the Nazca lines. There is a slippery slope that leads to hypocrisy here. In other words there's an unspoken, undetermined and completely unaccounted for line in history where suddenly a human-made geographic object or figure is what, "too venerable" to have such a section? Give me a break! Armadillo01 (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Plus, how many people in the world know of the Nazca Lines unless they see them in a cartoon, tv show or read about them in a book. It is not exactly often taught in schools, is it. And as Arnadukki01 said, there are numerous articals on wikipedia entitled "In Fiction", so why should this artical be any different?Wild ste (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


Nazca Lines pictures

I think there should be more pictures of Nazca Lines.

Constellations [?]

Some have suggested that the "Spider" Nazca line is actually a representation of the constellation Orion. That is, the ancient Incas saw a spider when they looked at it, as opposed to a "hunter" in our culture —I'm trying to find the citation first, before putting that in the article.

I'm curious, however, whether anybody knows of any research —and not just speculation— that the other lines might be representations of constellations as well? I have a very limited knowledge of astronomy, but it seems to me that the geometric shapes encompassing the spider line could indicate Eridandus and/or Canis Major.

Could the lines have been intended as an "Earthly reflection" of the night sky? Pine (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


redundant

half of the text between the 'introduction' and 'construction' sections is redundant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.83.55 (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Construction

I'm not really sure I like the construction part. It talks as if they definately know how Nazca was created. They just came up with a possible way for it to be made, but no one knows for sure. Anything could have made it. Even if that is the way they made it it is far too conclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.211.160 (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Erich von Däniken

The paragraph on von Däniken’s theories states that “His work is noteable for its extensive collection of aerial photographs”. I don't have a source for this but I remember seeing a documentary some years ago which demonstrated that his “aerial” photographs were in fact taken from ground level but with nothing to provide a size reference, hence creating the illusion that they were taken from a great height. The “aircraft parking bays” he famously identified in one photo were only about a foot across. Does anyone have a source to confirm this? --Prh47bridge (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hy Prh47, I haven't seen your doc, but next time you happen to be by a Goodwill store, drop in there & head to the book section and thumb thru a copy of "Chariots of the Gods?". Lots of aerial photographs. The film version has the aerial film footage the stills were taken from. Hanz ofbyotch (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I am familiar with the book. I used to own a copy. However, the alleged aerial photographs of the Nazca Lines are nothing of the sort. They were taken from ground level. This is by no means the only case of von Däniken making dubious claims in his books. Note that he also claimed that scientists say the Nazca Lines were ancient roads. Scientists, of course, don't say that. As can be seen from the photos accompanying this article they are stylised drawings. Prh47bridge (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know whether Erich von Däniken's work is "notable" for his aerial photographs, but I've never heard that story about ground level pics without size reference. Sounds improbable to me. In his book "Zeichen für die Ewigkeit" (I guess the english title is "Arrival of the Gods") he tells of the small Nazca airport, the tourist flights over the pampa, and you get pictures on which you can see part of the aircraft (cross beams, struts or whatever). I remember seeing the shadow of the aircraft on the ground in one of his documentaries. So this sounds more like a shallow polemic to me, without proper proof. Maybe you can find that documentary somewhere on youtube? Whithout anything in hand to identify the fake aerial photos, I would drop it. There's more than enough to criticize in his books. ;-) Jonas kork (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
von Däniken's "Arrival of the Gods" (Vega 2002 translation of "Zeichen für die Ewigkeit", Bertelsmann Verlag 1997) contains a very impressive collection of aerial photographs. The suggestion that they are "taken from ground level" is absurd. Ericlord (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I have seen the documentary mentioned by Prh47bridge, but I don't recall its name. The evidence presented there was very damning (if not hilarious). Some, though not all, of his photos were shown to be mispresented (including the tiny “aircraft parking bays”). I don't think it said that all of his photos were from ground level though. The documentary also introduced the guy who made one of von Däniken's artifacts. Zerotalk 04:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Luis H Cabrejo

The theories of Luis H Cabrejo seems to have been published by himself[3] and so does not pass muster as a Reliable source - especially not when the material is included by himself which also poses a problem of conflict of interest. The material cannot be included until such a time when the theory is independently notable (i.e. covered by significant sources unrelated to the author) or published in an academic venue (i.e. subject to peer review) - any inclusion of Cabrejos theories before this will violate wikipedias regulations against publishing original research.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

How about a Nazca Lines in Pop culture Reference section if you please?

Are you forgetting that the Nazca Lines are the inspiration for Konami to make the Yu-gi-oh 5Ds villains, the Dark Signers and their beasts, the Earthbound Immortals? Pity that they only used the Astronaut (which they refer to as the Giant), the Lizard, the Hummingbird, the Spider, the Monkey, the Killer Whale, and the Condor. just think what they would have thought up if they used more of the Nazca lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.108.123 (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not the only example. The Nazca Lines appear in an episode of Cowboy Bebop, as well as in the videogame Illusion of Gaia. I can't remember for sure, but they may also appear in the cartoon The Mysterious Cities of Gold. Legionaireb (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I am watching 'Mysterious' at this time (as I love that series) and it does indeed appear in an episode. That is the first place where the condor lands, before they learn that it can be manually controlled (beyond the autopilot). TeigeRyan (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Organized work does not imply religious significance. Whoever wrote this up...

"[...], but they generally ascribe religious significance to them, as they were major works that required vision, planning and coordination of people to achieve." Now this is probably one of the most stupid conclusions I have ever come across. I guess we need to ascribe "religious significance" to software then, too. I'll remove that sentence, for being pure nonsense. Maybe the conclusion is correct, but the reasoning, if it can be called that, is braindead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.245.193.231 (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent, mass deterioration of the Nazca Lines

This is quite disheartening. The lines are being ravaged by squatters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/us-peru-nazca-squatters-idUSBRE87E0R520120815. I added the reference in the last sentence on the top summary. But, I need someone else to work on adding the details in on a section regarding this problem due to it being human impact. 174.25.86.23 (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent Destrution http://www.peruthisweek.com/news-3743-peru-heavy-machinery-destroys-nazca-lines/ Luvodicus (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Useless satellite pictures =

Why are satellite pictures included in which the resolution is so low, all it shows are some mountains? For that matter, why does wikipedia in general have so many pictures that are so low resolution that they may as well not be included. After looking at this picture:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Nazca_Lines_SPOT_1311.jpg

The first thing I did was go to google maps to see what was actually visible. The most obvious lines in the picture above are two modern day roads, not the lines. Why is it that pictures are reduced to such incredibly low resolution they are all but useless? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.248.102.84 (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ray-headed figured depict Spondylus?

If the appearance of the Spondlyus shell was associated with rain and was considered holy, could the many ray-headed figures' heads be representations of Spondylus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.2.146 (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

New study

Just got this email from Mike Ruggeri (posted to go on a Usenet group):

British archaeologists have completed a 5 year study of the Nasca lines, walking the lines, studying the designs, using satellite digital mapping and have published their report in the journal Antiquity. Archaeologist Clive Ruggles found a labyrinth design. The labyrinth is not visible to the eye. You have to walk its length to discern the spiral formation. It cannot be understood from the air either. It appears that the labyrinth was only walked by a few people in a single file. And this may be the only one left with its integrity intact. Clive Ruggles says; “Excavations commonly uncover objects undisturbed for centuries and even millennia. But it is hard to conceive many places on the planet were you could still discover a human construction that has lain hidden on the surface of the ground for as long as 1500 years, simply by walking along it and seeing where your feet take you."

I like what you just posted, if your into the deeper meanings of things like i am and the religious aspects then maybe they were supposed to represent the diffrent pathways of life and if you did walk them maybe they were supposed to give you guidance on your course in life and were you will end up. And this comment is not meant to be rewritten or corrected for grammar because i really just dont care about that I got my thought across. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.105.153 (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

sci-news.com has the report here with some photos; http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/article00768.html

And the info on the Antiquity article is here; "Desert labyrinth: lines, landscape and meaning at Nazca, Peru", by Clive Ruggles & Nicholas J. Saunders, Antiquity 86, 1126–1140. antiquity.ac.uk/ant/086/ant0861126.htm Journal reference: Antiquity

Mike Ruggeri

Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Recreating something adds nothing to an original idea.

I have to wonder what the advantage gained by Joe Nickell was when he allegedly "reproduced the figures by using tools and technology available to the Nazca people." While The National Geographic called his work "remarkable in its exactness" when comparing it to the actual lines, what did Joel Nickell actually reveal?

Nickell had a template by the already laid out designs to work with so there was no planning, mathematical calculations or any evidence to support his theory that the tools found were indeed left by the people who created the lines. If the tools found were indeed left by the people who made the Nazca lines - what did they use as templates?

Is there any possibility that the tools discovered at Nazca were left by researchers of antiquity trying to learn how they were created? 

 Joseph A. Giallanza  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.173.114 (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Aliens

I just removed the section about the ancient aliens guy. It was poorly written, contained no sources and is not appropriate in alternative explanations because it is widely discredited. That said, the Nazca Lines have been featured on his show and that would be relevant in an "in pop culture" section--24.91.3.121 (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right about it being widely discredited and often that, along with lack of citations, might be enough to delete it. However, Van Daniken has gotten so much coverage over the years that a sentence or two (noting it as a discredited theory) seems better than ignoring it. I have seen other discredited theories mentioned in other articles, presumably for the same or similar reasons. I am not adamant about this but I suggest that if you wish to put it in a different section or rewrite it, that would be better than just deleting it. Donner60 (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree that removing the mention of Erich von Daeniken was not a good idea. He's not a scientist, I agree. He is a controversial person, I agree. But his books helped a lot to make the Nazca lines world-known! Many people learnt about the Nazca lines thanks to him -- he popularized them, as well as the work of Maria Reiche. Why delete the mention of von Daeniken, then? Optimiced (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What are the Nazca lines really?

I have pondered what the Nazca lines are and why they are there for almost fifty years and now it seems that the answer is obvious. People have just not viewed it with their thinking caps on. These kinds of lines are found all over the Andean region of South America and until now they have defied the collective imagination of the world as to what they are. The ancient South Americans had a system of writing which consisted of not on strings. They are called quipu. When you take a quipu and lie it out so that radiates from a central point it looks like Nazca lines. The Naszca lines as well as so many other similar geoglyphs in South America are writing. We just now have to figure out what they say. Too bad no one really understands how to read quipu. Brian Johnston http://atlantisincanada.yolasite.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.52.59 (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest giving external links to googlemaps for Figures listed in the article. A few of pictures has coordinates in their detail pages. It would be better to give the coordinates on the article itself as external links. Fotte (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

same image location

The two satellite photos are of the same location (and rotated), one should be removed.

189.188.22.58 (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC) baden k.

Fancruft?

Fancruft? Fine.

I added that information as I am sure I am not the only one who had wondered what exactly were those drawings that appeared in the Nintendo game I referenced. Obviously they were distinctive enough that I could still recall all three images 20+ years after I last played that particular game. That is all.

This is the second "point of clarification" I've attempted to add to a wiki article that has been chopped off and lobbed into the bit-bucket. I'm done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.230.50.150 (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Greenpeace Graffiti

I don't know of how to do this, but I assume that the recent flood of coverage about the Lines due to the actions of Greenpeace should be included somewhere. 50.184.230.146 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It has been, several times. (Sometimes in more than one place on the page!) Don't be afraid to try yourself! --220 of Borg 06:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Current statement is very prejudicial though and is not actually stated in the source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.120.185 (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that it has been made wp:NPOV now. For example one edit said damage was permanent, which I doubt is possible to be certain about yet. --220 of Borg 06:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the red lines in the posted image are misleading. They emphasis the tire tracks, which are months or years old. You can see them in this photo from January 2014. Update: Can ignore, someone has already removed the image. Thanks. Andrew-Galvanize-Davies (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Andrew-Galvanize-Davies: That 'someone' was another editor who also has self-admitted strong ties to Greenpeace. Though I have returned the picture for now, and the link to a related page, I can see your point (though I admit I haven't examined the picture that closely, and it is currently up for deletion, [4] from Commons though there is a claim it was "... released by Greenpeace...". (but without the red line!)
I would strongly suggest that anyone who is connected to Greenpeace not directly edit this section on this page, or any related sections on the Greenpeace or Criticism of Greenpeace pages. Instead, come here (or other relevant talk pages) to discuss the issue, point out any errors, exaggerations of the alleged damage etc, and suggest edits. This is due to Conflict of interest (COI) and will help avoid even the appearance of COI. I assume good faith, but there have already been what appear to be attempts to 'whitewash' this event by an IP editor from Amsterdam, here. In fairness, there have also been several IP edits that attempted to slant the information as far against Greenpeace as possible i.e. calling it an "... eco-terrorist group ...." here. Not very neutral! --220 of Borg 21:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed the image on the basis of the factual inaccuracy of the caption. I appreciate your offer to play fair editor and I'l cease any direct edits due to my COI. As Andrew-Galvanize-Davies pointed out, the image includes damage which has demonstrably present long before this action took place in a caption that reads "Damage done by Greenpeace activists to 'The Hummingbird' geoglyph in the Nazca Desert (outlined in red)" I was unawared this conversation was happening in the talk page, and should have checked. Brianfit (talk) 08:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)brianfit

To @220 of Borg: you may restore the image, it's confirmed by Vice News and PBS media (proof 1, PBS VIDEO) and to @Andrew-Galvanize-Davies and Brianfit: stop with your COI edit, I have found out you two are affiliated with Greenpeace as stated by your own user pages and link inside Brianfit user pages Affiliation statement.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 11:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Aldnonymous:I cant, it's been deleted as a copyright violation. When you say above: "... it's confirmed .." do you mean the damage is confirmed? --220 of Borg 11:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes the damage is correct, just watch the video and read that vice news article, it has same damage signature.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 11:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Addendum you may use those two links as references, good luck, I will not expand this article.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 11:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

On adding new alternative explanations to the article page

The article has a section called "Alternative Explanations". While the "Talk" area is "not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject", it is an area where new information can be disclosed. Searchers who check Wikipedia for information about Nazca Lines would probably find the contents of The Nazca Lines - A Non-mysterious, Non-extraterrestrial Explanation interesting. I have not entered anything on the article page as Wikipedia apparently does not allow input by the "original researcher", as it is deemed self-promotion. If someone else finds this "alternative explanation" worthy of being included on the article page, I can provide appropriate text and figure(s).--SciMann (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Date

So the linked scholarly article doesn't use the dates that this wiki entry does. Indeed my reading is that it indicates the early intermediate period (200BC - 650AD). It also doesn't link correctly - I'll fix this. Can someone who is better with deciphering dates in academic texts take a look, perhaps? IntriguingStar (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Appearances in Fiction

I've seen many articles with such a section, seems like it would be good here. I know it's referenced in the TV series Falling Skies. 184.167.181.2 (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hands?

Who came up with the interpretation of that image at the bottom of the page labeling it "Hands"? It doesn't look like it is supposed to be "hands", by any stretch of the imagination. There are elements that look "hand-like", but it's obviously not supposed to BE hands. Looks like a radish to me! Or some other vegetable, with leaves growing out of the top. Or if you wanted to get extra-terrestrial (sort of), it could be a flaming meteorite....45Colt 06:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hands indeed

More likely to be Ambystoma mexicanum than hands. 86.179.141.218 (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not an owlman!!!!!!!!!!

Not owlman, but regular old man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.71.10 (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

von Daniken

The Wiki article on Erich von Daniken says "Däniken brought the Nazca Lines to public prominence in Chariots of the Gods? with his proposal that the lines were built on instructions from extraterrestrial beings as airfields for their spaceships." I am surprised he is not mentioned at all here. Perhaps I could add the quoted line with a link to the article? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Nazca Lines

I appreciate you sourcing the claim that the nazca lines can be seen from foothills. Unfortunately, your first source does not agree with your claim, it specifically opposes it, and the second source is a children's book author. If you are comfortable leaving that in, I'm not going to get into an edit war.

It would be nice to get some picture proof, it would definitely put any debate to rest. Unfortunately my google skills aren't good enough to bring up any pictures supporting the claim. Jaytee thomas (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

From the first source (Gardner's Art Through the Ages: Ancient, medieval, and non-European art) seen here: "...the lines were supposedly visible only from the air. But, in fact, the lines are visible from the Andean foothills and the great coastal dunes." The second source by Bonnie Hinman quite clearly agrees. And although it is intended for juvenile audiences, ABDO Publishing Company is a pretty reputable publisher and supplier of classroom and school library books. Regarding your need to see "picture proof", I'm sorry, but WP:V Wikipedia content is determined by published information from reliable sources rather than the experiences of its editors. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, it's not hard to find travel websites like Fodor that give advice on how to see the glyphs/lines without an aircraft. Example from the anywhere.com travel site: "Hike one of the nearby dunes to see the lines from a distance—Cerro Blanco is an enormous dune with a great view of the glyphs. You won’t be able to see the designs in their entirety, but as far as we know, neither did the Nazca." - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I can't read this on my iPad but it should help. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nazca Lines. 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) 08:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nazca Lines. 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) 20:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

how wide/thick are the average lines that actually make up a figure?

how wide/thick are the average lines that actually make up a nazca figure? like, as wide as a stick?...or a human foot? how thick???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesuseverett (talk • contribs) 17:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

From the article: "These geoglyphs are 10 to 15 cm (4 to 6 in) deep, and between 0.4 and 1.1 km (.2 and .7 mi) wide". So the skinniest is over 1000 feet wide. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
That's the whole design! I think the actual lines are about 1 to 2 foot thick. This photo, with a road and waist-down human at top gives the best idea. Johnbod (talk)
Ah. 1000 foot wide lines did seem a little oversized ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
It would be good to add a referenced average figure. I was largely going off memories of a documentary I saw years ago, with some ground level footage, plus the photos. I'd rather query the "trench" aspect of our description here too - my recollection is that the layer of pebbles was just cleared away, leaving a flat earth surface that was much lighter in colour. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Book search only comes up with a snippet view [5] that says "The most common line width, that of over half the lines, is a little over one-third meter". - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh wait, here's another [6] - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Great - I note too the "depressions or shallow incisions" etc language on the second - "trench" suggests more than this. Will you add something using these? The "a little over one-third meter" is just over 1 foot (0.30448 m.). Johnbod (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, [7] feel free to tweak as necessary. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - fiddled & added a bit. I think the point is well covered now. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

This is outdated

Satellite images have shown through enhancement that there are actually millions of lines on the Nazca plain. The drawings are probably late in the whole construct. There is also a large city on the south edge of the plain with large pyramidal structures. There also huge ancient mining operations and canals that run all around the sides of the plain. There is far more going on here than this outdated information suggests. In the gallery found here: http://atlantisincanada.com/bolivian-nazca.php you will find hundreds of images of the lines in great detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.124.206 (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Um, atlantisincanada.com? Find some archaeologists or peer reviewed articles backing this nonsense. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

These Nazca Lines already becoming absurd

In UFO forum someone explains how to make such lines with 3 sticks, long rope and almost zero math. He also explains what these triangular shapes are for and why this particular triangular shape was chosen. WTF, already the UFO lunatics mock the so-called archaeologists and offer more logical explanations than them?! 79.100.135.35 (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

https://www.alienbabble.com/threads/nazca-geoglyphs-primitive-technique-of-their-making.557/

The technique described in this forum works on 100%. I was able to translate a small figure from about 2х3 meters to figure with size 20х30 meters without any problem for a short time. You don't even have to see what you're doing, the proportions of the figure keep to themselves, just as this man described. Why someone not describe this technique in the main article? 82.137.117.5 (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Nazca lines

I want to learn more about them Dannydavila93 (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazca_lines/Archive_1&oldid=1219056387"