Talk:Puñay

ESPOCH thesis

found some hardcopy information in the thesis of Christian Aguirre who took the first team to carbon date and make measurements and a topographical map of Puñay in the university library, its not available on the internet but if you press on the following link: http://www.espoch.edu.ec/search.php?cx=partner-pub-2956601792031718%3Adpx46l87kt8&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=christian+aguirre&sa=Ir&siteurl=www.espoch.edu.ec%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Dver_noticia%26id%3D851#1039

then open up the PDF "TESIS DE INVESTIGACION DEL 2004 AL 2009 REALIZADA POR LOS ..." it has a list of all the thesis investigations between 2004 and 2009 (Puñay being 106) which are available in the faculty library of the University Politecnica de Chimborazo.

Finding this primary source for the measurements of the pyramid meant i could finally delete the reference on the first paragraph which was to a commercial site. Ecuadorecoadvice (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Jake Ling

sorry the thesis is under number 91 not 106 Ecuadorecoadvice (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Jake Ling

Name of article

The reports of the Ministerial visit refer to a temple rather than a pyramid. Indeed, if it has the outline of a macaw, it is hard to see how its shape can be described as pyramidic. And who refer to the "Lost Pyramid of Puñay": this sounds like a title invented to generate commercial/touristic interest: are there sources refering to the construction by this name other than from those with such an interest? Kevin McE (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You know i bet you are right that name was probably given to the pyramid as a way to generate commercial / touristic interest (its way too cheesy) locals mainly refer to it as that or as cerro punay. i've been told it was called the lost pyramid of punay because of an indigenous Kichwa myth about a 'lost pyramid' or 'lost temple' that was on the peak of a mountain and full of gold which led the spaniards in search of its existence. this is impossible to verify however and Ockhams Razor says it was probably generated as a touristic ploy

if you check out the reference ive left they refer to it as a number of names, this one below in the title calls it a "Centro Ceremonial" ceremonial center http://www.explored.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/descubren-antiguo-centro-ceremonial-157603-157603.html

but in the article it goes on to say: "Son dos pirámides truncadas con un sinnúmero de terrazas. Sin duda, fueron construidas por los Cañaris, por las técnicas utilizadas." they are two truncated pyramids with innumerous terraces... and if you search that article for the word "pirámide" pyramid is mentioned five times

and again here: http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/el-cerro-punay-si-fue-un-centro-ceremonial-186113-186113.html

De acuerdo a la investigación, la pirámide sería una de las más grandes del mundo y con la particularidad de encontrarse en la cima de una montaña, --- with regards to the investigation, the pyramid may be one of the biggest in the world with the peculiar attribute of being on a mountain,

"Estamos hablando de una pirámide de siete pisos que le dieron la forma de una guacamaya en alto relieve". Según el experto," we are talking about a pyramid of seven levels in the form of a macaw went on an expert

"La pirámide estaría construida, en sus taludes, con piedra, arcilla y cal, "esto le permitió soportar la erosión hídrica y eólica" the pyramid was constructed on its slopes with stones, clay and lime to support it and prevent erosion, etc.

its kind of hard to put it into a category because its not shaped like any conventional pyramid...here are some more revealing pics i found, the pyramid / ceremonial temple is huge so its hard to get any perspective from any one photo,

http://picasaweb.google.com/wladisito/PuAy#5012589889961241122 there are two truncated pyramids at the peak of the temple, thats a photo of the minor pyramid taken from the major one

http://picasaweb.google.com/wladisito/PuAy#5012592363862403730 this photo gives more of a sense that its a pyramid with all of the terraces leading upwards to the peak, i count five terraces there

i dont know what you would classify it as temple or pyramid because it is both and neither. i do however think the name 'the lost pyramid' may be a little disingenuous until we at least find a reliable reference to the kichwa myth. Should we change the name to just Puñay? cheers Ecuadorecoadvice (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Jake Ling

That would be better. I'm not convinced your terraces aren't natural. Or that we can use that dissertation as a reliable source for this. It's a claim about archaeology, we need archaeological input. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

hey doug, first thing they aren't "mine" i'm Australian not Ecuadorian and ill leave this country in a few months anyway - the references i have provided like www.hoy.com.ec and explored.com.ec are some of the biggest news sites in Ecuador and have no hidden agenda or reason to write articles on some imaginary pyramid. then there is the reference to a website run by the Ecuadorian Government and their article about the hundreds of indigenous people and the most important people in the state of chimborazo that went to the pyramid to declare it a ""Spiritual Patrimony of the Peoples and Nations of Humanity" here are the photos, run it through google translator: http://www.turismo.gob.ec/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=362&Itemid=59

do you honestly think people from the Ecuadorian government and dozens and dozens of indigenous people and leaders would go to this place and perform such a ceremony if this place is imaginary? that big news websites like hoy.com.ec that have nothing to do with the government or tourism would write about it in several articles (the very ones referenced) if the terraces are merely natural and not the largest Pre-incan pyramid (or temple) ever constructed in South America? that respected Universities like the ESPOCH would have accepted a thesis about a pyramid constructed by the Cañari people carbon dated 4,657 years old at if it is really just some conniving tourism ploy to catch the wily editors at wikipedia off guard?

with all due respect Doug i think your cynicism is a little misplaced with regards to this article considering you are judging it from a photo and cannot read the reliable references because they are in Spanish. if you want to delete the page then that is your prerogative, i cannot stop you, if you leave it be then i will continue to update it every now and again when better photos and more information (hopefully analysis by archeologists) crosses my path until i leave the country and someone else picks up the torch. but i just do not have the time, nor the knowhow, in finding reports and analysis by archeologists in a foreign country that speaks a language that is not my own.

i renamed article to omit 'the lost pyramid'

sincerely Ecuadorecoadvice (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)JakeLing

Archaeological investigations & sources

Hi Jake. I don't think Doug's being cynical, but (appropriately) sceptical. The major obstacle for this article and its central claims is that there appear to be no independent and qualified sources that confirm, or even mention, a pyramidic structure at cerro Puñay. The only sources that identify such a structure at this place stem from this Inti-Quilla group of students/teacher at ESPOCH's School of Ecotourism. I have done an extensive search but cannot find any other hint or mention about Puñay in Andean archaeological literature, or anywhere else for that matter. This is problematic, because a pyramid (or other structure) with the antiquity and dimensions claimed would be a matter of significant international archaeological interest. The apparent absence of any other accounts or investigations at Puñay indicates either that Inti-Quilla have thus far failed to get anyone else to substantiate, or at the very least investigate, their findings.

The articles in Hoy and its news websites are just reportage, they are only relaying details about what Inti-Quilla are telling them they have found, not that their findings have been confirmed. The ceremony and the Ecuadoran minister's visit are not related to there being a 'pyramid' there, but apparently because the cerro itself is a place of some ceremonial / cultural significance to the local indigenous population. Quite plausibly, the mountain (like many others) may have been a ceremonial place for the conquest-era or precolumbian Cañari, although from what I can tell it's a little beyond their usually ascribed territory. And the couple of theses & papers submitted at ESPOCH (by students associated with this same Inti-Quilla group, apparently), such as this one, concern tourism development in the region; they are not archaeological papers. They do seem to take the existence of the pyramid as described for granted, but there are no sources or other evidence cited.

The claims have some other problems as well. There's no indication about what material produced the claimed radiocarbon date, or how that material confirms when it was built (obviously can't radiocarbon date stone). Also no indication who performed the dating, as Doug points out the School of Ecotourism, or even ESPOCH itself, is unlikely to have the facilities or expertise to carry out radiocarbon dating; that's not what they're about. There appears to have been no excavation or any other archaeological investigation, beyond the topographical measurements claimed. Either way this seems insufficient to be able to confirm any actual pyramidal construction (whether shaped like a macaw or not), versus there being merely some terracing, maybe artificial, maybe natural.

Also, if there is a structure there 4500 years old, then attributing it to the Cañari would be anachronistic and doesn't seem to make much sense. AFIAK Cañari sites are defined at no earlier than the Late Intermediate (or Integration) Period, ie after AD 900. But a date of 2400BC puts it back 3000 years well into the Formative or Initial period, contemporary with the late Valdivia culture of the coast. The only basis for ascribing the pyramid to Cañari culture is their assumption that cerro Puñay is the mythical mount of origin described in some Cañari traditions, because of the supposed 'macaw-shaped' construction. But even one of the claimants in the Hoy articles says this is only speculation.

Here's what I think we have from what I've been able to find

• There does seem to be at least a precolumbian temple or ceremonial platform at or near the summit of the mountain (not uncommon in these parts).
• However, in 2002 Ing. Aguirre and some students at the school of ecotourism ESPOCH believe they have found evidence that pretty much the whole summit is in fact a constructed pyramid. They call in someone from Ecuador's Instituto Nacional de Patrimonio Cultural (INPC) to take a look, but he can confirm nothing more than there are precolumbian ruins present (nothing about a pyramid).
• The ecotourism school carries out some measurements and puts together some speculations. No excavations or significant archaeological investigations though. They talk to the press about it, several articles are written. Who knows where the radiocarbon date comes from. Some of the students write it in to their theses & papers on regional tourism development. The school (or a group in the school) agitate for recognition of the site as a place of significant cultural heritage, however more so relating to the indigenous ceremonies, less so because anyone has confirmed their speculations about the extensive nature of the structure.
• In 2005 it seems Ing. Aguirre gives a presentation to the III Ecuadoran archaeological conference about it. I can find a single reference to this presentation, but not any commentary to indicate how it was received, & it does not appear in the conference's proceedings.
• The Chunchi municipal govt asks INPC to do some investigations at Puñay. At INPC's website I can find only an administrative note that records receiving a letter from the municipality in 2009 requesting this, and INPC note the request will be included in their 2010 action plan for consideration. Thus far, nothing seems to have yet come of this. The only other reference to Puñay at INPC is another request, filed by Ing. Aguirre, for them to consider the indigenous ceremonies in the municipal region (incl. Puñay) as worthy of heritage protection.
• Apart from this, there seem to have been no published or referenced investigations of the site by INPC or any other party, that either confirms or discounts the pyramid claims from the ESPOCH group.

Unfortunately, until there's evidence of independent assessment of the claims made here, I don't think it's reasonable to maintain the article as-is. Perhaps there really is a pyramid of the age and size claimed by this group, and I've no reason to doubt their motives and belief in their findings are anything other than genuine. But as things stand it seems all to be unvalidated speculation. If written about in the terms I describe above (ie 'pending' confirmation), then the question of whether this is notable comes in to play. Perhaps the article could be turned in to an article about the mountain itself, with the claims re the pyramid appearing in the context of a proposal, not yet validated. But I don't think an article centred a pyramid that may or may not exist, with characteristics that are not substantiated, would be appropriate here. --cjllw ʘ TALK 16:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

let me first say i am really really impressed with the effort and research you have put in, it has raised my opinion of wikipedia immensely. after my own research and seeing the structure and terraces first hand i previously found it incredibly hard to understand any point of view outside of my own and i apologise to doug for my irritated last post, without an archeological analysis the article is standing on very flimsy references indeed. there are a few points you raised that i am pretty sure i can answer and back up, tomorrow however ill be away from the internet for the first half of the week. is there any advice you can give me on how to find more reliable references when i get back? i have been told by several people that there has been an archeological surveys done of the site (and i have no reason to doubt them) i just don't know where to look. i understand that if it cannot be found then your suggestion of rewriting the article around the hill instead of the pyramid must be done, at least until more information becomes available or an archeologist goes to the site to verify the validity of the claims. when i get back ill get looking straight away and put all my findings in the discussion section for scrutiny. thanks Ecuadorecoadvice (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)jakeling

Hi Jake. We have some more time now that the article has been kept (no consensus to delete). However I think we are agreed that the article needs to be overhauled to focus on the mountain, while the antique pyramid claims need to be put on a more qualified footing.

I will do what I can, but unfortunately my availability for wiki editing right now is limited and sporadic at best. Hopefully upon your return you'll be able to look into it, and will look forward to any further findings you may come across.

I have a couple of suggestions for sources/places of enquiry:

• The first would be the Arqueología Ecuatoriana website. This is a French-Ecuadoran archaeological collaboration, sponsored jointly by a research group from France's Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD) and the Ecuadoran Ministry of Culture. It seems they have an active forum on Ecuadoran archaeological developments, with a number of specialists participating. I think it may be worthwhile posting an open query there to see if anyone has any info or opinion about Puñay, or indeed the known archaeological history of the locality in general. That may turn something up, one way or the other.
• Second would be to enquire at Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriana "Benjamín Carrión" (CCE), among other things this institution hosts the Ecuadoran archaeological & anthropological conferences that C. Aguirre apparently made a presentation to on his claims/finds @ Puñay. I have managed to find now that his presentation did make it in to the conference proceedings, Memorias de los Encuentros Nacionales III de "Arqueología" y IV de "Antropología" "Nela Martínez Espinosa", published by CCE in 2007. I missed it before as was looking at the wrong vol., the proceedings were published in two parts. From what I can see the info, even some of the wording, is along the same lines as the reporting in those Hoy articles. But its appearance in the proceedings doesn't say anything as to how it was received, or whether the claims check out or not, of course. It's still info from the same/only claimant, nothing corroborating as yet. But maybe CCE have some further info on it.
• Third would be to enquire at INPC, as I mentioned before I can't find any substantial mentions of Puñay at its website, but maybe they have some public enquiries facility and they might be able to give an update at least as to whether they'll be doing any detailed investigation of the site.
• Fourth one could try posting a query at the Andean and Amazonian Archaeology Discussion Group, it's a small listing run by Mike Ruggeri, but active & I believe a few well-qualified folks read it so maybe that would garner some opinion.

Otherwise, if you're there in Riobamba and are able to be in touch with any of the folks from ESPOCH they might at least have more info about what investigations have actually been done. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

hey guys sorry ive been really really busy lately but thanks for putting the time in to edit the article to focus on the mountain until some archeological evidence is found. yesterday i tried to track down Christian, didn't find him but found a guy who works with him that has access to the 2008 INPC Archeolgoical Survey and other information, told him about the wikipedia page and he expresed interest in helping me and creating the spanish version of it.

i'll look into those french ecuadorian forums and will post my findings here in discussion, again thanks for all the effort at uncovering these obscure sites on google! Ecuadorecoadvice (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)jakeling