Talk:Inca Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a current candidate for the Peru Article Improvement Drive.
Please see the project page to find this article's entry to support or comment on the nomination.
Nominate an article you think needs improvement or vote for one of the candidates here.
Inca Empire was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: August 9, 2006
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Inca Empire as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Esperanto, French, German, Hebrew, Icelandic or Spanish language Wikipedias.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Inca Empire is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
This article has been selected for Version 0.7. This History article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] How Unfortunate

It seems somebody really fucked up this article. As I recall it was actually pretty good as of 2 months ago. The information on Incan agricultural techniques and policies was especially significant. I ask that such a section is included in the rewritten version of this article which I hope is being compiled even now. -bordergroves

[edit] "Cusco" or "Cuzco"

Cusco seems to be used much more often than Cuzco. Perhaps all mentions of "Cuzco" should be changed? -- (left unsigned by Dynamax)

In Spanish, and most European languages Cusco is correct. However, in English, Cuzco is correct, I've made this mistake myself. Please change any instances of "Cusco" that you see to "Cuzco". -- Zenyu 02:11, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
This would also include the Wikipedia page on the city of Cusco/Cuzco itself; currently it has been blown up and is currently under construction. --Bletch 02:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is not an important enough issue. You are attempting to assign Latin characters to the Quechua language, which was never written. On a trip to Peru I had the pleasure of visiting the capital of the Inca Empire and saw many signs reading "QosQo." This being said, it is true that in Spanish it is more common to use "Cusco" and in English more common to use "Cuzco." Rafajs77 12:34, Aug 11, 2006 (PST)

As a Peruvian I can attest, Kosko, Cosco, Cusco and Cuzco are but few of the possible variants... However as time has passed and more rules have grown around Spanish (Back then there were no formalities within Spanish) Cuzco and Cusco have grown to become the only correct spellings... But either works just as fine. Herle King 09:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that for some reason Cuzco is preferred in Spain and Cusco in Peruvian Spanish. --Error (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Inca or "Incan"

The use of "Inca" or "Incan" as adjective seems inconsistent. For instance, the article has "Incan Emperor" and "Inca planned economy". Should everything be changed to "Inca"? Or is there some kind of rule to determine usage? WpZurp 16:30, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In Spanish, the adjective for something Inca is "incaico". My Collins Spanish-English dictionary translates "incaico" as "Inca", which corresponds with my hunch. I think we can get rid of "Incan" as an adjective.
Use Inca or Incaic. "Inca" is the most popular adjective. "Incaic" is used more in academic sources.-unsigned

Inca is a sustantive and an adjective depending on use, in Spanish "Ciudadela Inca" is the same "Inca Village". In English the preference of one over another seems the same rule that makes "an apple" and "a banana" have two different words (banana and apple) and one word that is the same in a different contact... That it is Incan before words beginning with a vowel and and Inca before words beginning with a consonant... With Spanish no fixed preferences exists for "incaico" or "inca".Herle King 10:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location at Inca Empire vs Tahuantinsuyu

I think Inca or Incan empire is the proper english name, Tahuantinsuyu is the local name. I think the article should go with the english name. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:03, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I think both Tahuantinsuyu and Inca Empire are ok, I'm abstaining on this one. But it seems that 'Incan' is not correct. See first comment at top of this page in reference to "Incan". Gsd97jks 13:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tahuantinsuyu was the name of the country. Westerners called it the "Inca empire" because it was large. Wikipedia's own empire article wouldn't classify the "Inca empire" as having a classical imperial political structure. But of course, the common meaning of empire as a sovereign entity created through conquest and/or intimidation still applies. But even if we think of it as an empire, calling it the Inca Empire is like calling the United States of America, "President Empire". Or calling the old British Empire, "Queen Empire". Or calling the First French Empire under Napoleon, "Emperor Empire"...

More like Pharaoh Empire. But Inca is now used for the inhabitants, not only the top leaders. Also Byzantine Empire#The name "Byzantine Empire" is a modern name, we don't title the article Roman Empire as they styled themselves.--Error 02:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think using "Inca empire" is necessarily wrong when casually referring to Tahuantinsuyu, as in a link. Just like there is nothing wrong with using American Empire or Napoleonic Empire to refer to the United States of America and First French Empire, resp. But we wouldn't write the main page about the United States or America under the title "American Empire". When talking about the 16th century country on it's own page, we should use its name or a well known anglicization (Ísland -> Iceland, Deutschland -> Germany, etc.) The anglicization "Tawantinsuyu" exists but it's used much less often in the English literature than the Quechua and Spanish "Tahuantinsuyu". So Tahuantinsuyu is the proper name for the page, like First French Empire is for the "Napoleonic Empire". But Inca Empire is also a proper alternate way to refer to the empire, just like Napoleonic Empire is a proper alternative way to refer to the First French Empire and should remain as a redirect. --Zenyu 14:31, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer Inca empire, since Inca is much well known in the english language, and give about ten times the google hits than Tahuantinsuyu. But I can live with a majority decision either way. The one thing i insist on is that any move of a page is done properly, and not with a cut/copy from one article to the other. The history of all previous edits should be maintained. The previous move was a cut/copy job and all the edit history stayed with the old redirect. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:51, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Tawantinsuyu or Inka Empire are better terms. I would support changing the spelling of Inca and Incan to Inka and Incan in all cases, as well as instances of "hua" to "wa" (Tahuantinsuyo->Tawantinsuyu). This non-Spanish orthography seems to be the preferred one in contemporary history writings. D.E. Cottrell 05:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have a bunch of modern and old books using Tahuantinsuyu, both Tawantinsuyo and Tahuantinsuyo seem much less common, and are mostly present on the web (I've seen Tawantinsuyu in a book however, so maybe a change is happening?) And we already went through the whole "Inca" vs. "Incan" as the adjective. Inca seems to sound better to native English speakers and since both are proper we went with Inca. As for "Inka" with a "k", this is hardly ever used in English. What we need is a template explaining why there are all these different spellings, then we can place some standardized explanation at the bottom of each page containing a Quechua terms. --Zenyu 01:20, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
BTW I'm going to close the renaming debate in a couple days, there isn't enough interest and people seem happy enough with "Inca Empire". We do need to do some work on the article however, not having a map of the four provinces of the empire is terrible. Having a political map with all the different incorporated city states would be even better, of course.... --Zenyu 01:20, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I'm going to have to disagree (though it is a futile thing, I know). Tawantinsuyu does fit the definition of an empire given in the Wikipedia article in that it was a multi-ethnic state governed from a central location (Qusqu/Qosqo/Cuzco), through various means. It was just as much an empire as the Persian one Alexander conquered. As for the "Inka" with a "k," in National Geographic's most recent issue on the Inka, the fold out map explained that Inka is the preferred academic spelling these days, but they use Inca anyway because people are more familiar with it (which to me is quite lame in that it assumes that its readers not familiar with this spelling are of such a mental calibre that they either cannot comprehend or tolerate the new spelling). It is a matter of taste, but I say why not. We have updated terms in English over the past 50-100 years (ie, "Negroe"-> "Black" or "African-American"), and spelling as well (ie, Rumania->Romania, Servia->Serbia, et cetera).

Basically, I am in favor of de-Hispanized/current academic transliterations and terminology. Sigh. Okay, schpiel over. D.E. Cottrell 07:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The good thing about Wikipedia redirects is that it's quite easy to make sure all of these terms (Tahuantinsuyu, Tawantinsuyo, Tahuantinsuyo, Tawantin Suyu, Inca, Incan, Inka) can be made to lead to the same article. I understand that it's a hassle to get people used to new terms, but since academics favor the spellings closer to non-hispanicized Quechua (ironically, itself hispanicized), I think it makes sense to shift over to Inka and Tawantin Suyu, but with careful redirects. Again, this isn't a big issue. Interlingua 23:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
For some people it is a big issue. There have been edit wars before over the spelling of Quechua words; it's really worth thinking twice before making a lot of changes. I think opposition to the revised spelling is of two types: people who desire compatibility with other reference works in English (which used the traditional spelling), and some Spanish-educated contributors who just abhor the new spellings. Note also that redirects don't take care of searches— e.g. if someone looks for Atahualpa, a redirect would point them to the main article but not to other references (e.g. in the Conquest of Peru article). Zompist 04:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the limitations of the redirect. Interlingua 00:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I made a number of changes from 'Tahuantinsuyu' to 'Inca Empire' before noticing this discussion. I meant no disrespect. This discussion has taken place on numerous articles and the WP policy is to use the most commonly accepted English term (on the English Wikipedia that is). So even if the term 'empire' is inaccurate we must use it until 'Tahuantinsuyu' becomes the common English term. (In the same way that the Germany article doesn't use 'Deutschland'). Ashmoo 05:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Inca vs. Inka. In contemporary archaeology, the k form prevails. But the average English reader only knows the c form. So, let's have a redirect for the k form (currently, "Inka" goes directly to some-thing about India) on a disambiguation page. Kdammers 03:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clothing and forced relocation of conquered peoples

Found this in the Clothing section and am moving it here. I don't know who wrote it. Mona-Lynn 09:21, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-- Note: those forcibly relocated had to wear the clothing of their origin so that they would not be integrated into their new community. This should be discussed, but we may need a separate section just on the forced relocation of former enwmies, as avoidance of this was one of the reasons so many people did not fight the Inca army. --

[edit] Smallpox

I took out the part about smallpox being Huayna Capac's killer because I found this, http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/aha2004/, which is an academic investigation calling that theory into question. Mona-Lynn 08:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources give smallpox as the probable cause of Huayna Capac's death. It should go back into the article. The fact that a single student paper questions that conclusion is not sufficient to overturn the conventional interpretation. D. G. Julien 06:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'The Inca' or 'The Incas' ?

I know as a fact that most peruvians refer to the Inca civilization as "The Incas" and not "The Inca." Most articles on the web also refer to them as the "The Incas" with an S. Unless anybody has any objections the 'S' should be added in front of "Inca" when used with a "The" throughout this article. -- (left unsigned by Dynamax)

In Spanish you always add an s to a word to make it plural, but English has some words such as "deer", "aircraft", and "Inca" that use the same word for the plural and the singular. Note: Inca is not a word known by most English speakers so, unlike "deer", it has become corrupted so that "The Incas" is sometimes used in English to refer to the people living in the Inca empire (such as the Chimu or the Chachapoyas), to Quechua speakers, to the descendants of people of the Cuzco Kingdom, or to the Inca royalty, as opposed to the Supa Inca. -- Zenyu 02:11, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
While what you say about pluralization in Spanish and in some irregular English words is true, I don't see the connection between that and your final point, which is about not irregular plurals but the semantic extension of "Inca/Incas" to apply to a variety of groups within the Inca Empire. Nor do I think this semantic extension is something that distinguishes English from Spanish. Spanish speakers often use "Inca" to refer to a range of peoples who would not have been called "Inca" by the Inca themselves. It's often used as a synomym for "Quecha." Similarly, in popular usage about Mexican history, there's a lot of blurring among the following categories: Nahua, Chichimeca, Aztec, Mexica. Specialists, or mOre careful writers, in either language will try to distinguish among these terms. Interlingua 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incas and Malaria

The Inca made many discoveries in medicine. They used quinine to treat malaria

Can we get a source on this? According to the book Plagues and Peoples by William McNeill, malaria was not present in the Americas until brought over after 1492. Here is a paragraph from the book (p 220):

As far as malaria is concerned, the most telling argument rests on studies of the distribution of human genetic traits associated with the tolerance of malarial infection. These appear to have been entirely absent from Amerindian populations. Similarly, malarial parasites that infect wild monkeys of the New World appear to be identical with those of the Old

Of course, this could mean that had quinine and used it (either before or after the Spanish conquest) to treat malaria when malaria arrived. In that case, some clarification could be warranted. --Bletch 00:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spaniards or Spanish?

I've also been noticing throughout various Peruvian-related articles that some wikipedians have been using "Spaniards" while others continue with "Spanish". I think everyone must reach a consensus as to what word to use in every article, especially those related to the conquest and history of Peru. State your opinions.

I generally hear the term "Spaniard" to describe individuals (e.g. "A house owned by a Spaniard"), whereas "Spanish" is more of a pure adjective (e.g. "A Spanish house".) --Bletch 23:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Spaniard" refers to people, whether individually (in the singular) or in groups (in the plural). "Spanish" refers equally well to people, things, abstractions. I don't think it's necessary to remove the use of "Spaniard(s)" when referring to people. It's perfectly acceptable, as is "Spanish." Interlingua 23:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pantheist?

There's a difference between having a pantheon and practicing Pantheism.

[edit] Spelling in this article

Spelling of Quechua words in this article varies from older Spanish style to more than one form of modern Quechua!

  • Mama Ocllo, Collasuyu, Huayna Cápac are examples of Spanish spelling
  • Qollasuyu later on is a modern spelling (for the same word represented Collasuyu earlier!); the preferred modern form is Qullasuyu.
  • T'oqrikoq (under Political organization) shows the glottalized t' of Cuzco dialect, but this isn't consistent-- if it were, for instance, we should write mit'a.

I don't object to established English terms like 'Inca' or 'alpaca' or 'quinoa'; but it seems to me that for less known terms, we should stick to one system. I can help with this (I have good sources on Quechua), but which should it be?

Zompist 05:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I think inconsistency is part of the price of a freely editable encyclopia. The Spanish spelling is the most common in English sources so it is the correct spelling for the English encyclopia according to the Wikipedia spelling guidelines. If it doubt do an 'English only' google search on the Spanish and Quechua spellings, then use the more common one first, and the less common one as an alternate spelling. Zenyu 17:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inca writing?

Did the Inca have any writing method apart from the k'ipu? This website, http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Inca_Writing.html, alleges so. Do their claims have any merit?

It probably does not have any merit. The Spanish priests interviewed many Inca and burned all their books, if they had contained writing as opposed to pictures and single word symbols someone would have probably noted it. But there might have been some cultures that the Inca conquered that had writing. The Inca had their own system in the Quipu that was better adapted to their climate in the mountains. The Inca would probably have considered writing on paper to be a technologically backward and ignored it. Besides the symbols in that "Inca writing sample" do not look stylistically like Inca symbols, so I would doubt its authenticity as an Inca artifact. Zenyu 17:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Almost every reputable scholar I've read says that only the Maya had a true writing system, ie one that allows the expression of all the words in a language. I wonder what might be the cultures you're referring to, Zenyu, that were conquered by the Incas and which may have had writing. Could you give us some names or citations? Michael Coe's Breaking the Maya Code is one source that argues for Maya exceptionalism. Interlingua 00:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to any cultures. AFAIK none of the people's conquered by the Inca had writing. My point was more that the symbols on the web page did not look like an Inca symbols. I don't think it is impossible that someone invented a writing system for himself that was never adapted by the culture at large. This has happened many times in history and pre-history. Q: When was movable type first invented? A: Thousands of years before it was re-invented became popular. Zenyu 19:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely. Read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jarred Diamond for the explanation of how rare an difficult it is to establish a brand new alphabet for the purposes of writing. I think it has only happened 3 or 4 times in human history (the rest are copies or adaptations). Having the Quipu also established would make it that much more unlikely, since once a society chooses a path reversal tends to be costly (Path Dependence). Rafajs77 12:43, 11 Aug 2006 (PST)

However, Gary Urton and others (Ascher) believe that the Quipus could code language.

[edit] The word Tawantinsuyu

The name of the empire, Tawantinsuyu, is quite simple in Quechua, but is a little hard to render correctly in English or Spanish, and tends to get confused with people's recollections of imperfect or non-literal translations.

Tawa means "four"; tawantin is a group of four things. The suffix -ntin is used for accompaniment (allqontin "with the dog"), to indicate the totality of a time period (watantin "all year long"), or to indicate a group of a particular size (chunkantin "a group of ten"). It does not mean "united". Tawantin is thus a unit composed of four parts-- an English equivalent would be 'quartet'. For more, see Clodoaldo Soto Ruiz, Gramática Quechua Ayacucho-Chanca or Antonio Cusihuaman Gutierrez, Gramática Quechua Cusco-Collao.

Suyu is "region, province, territory"-- Quechua doesn't really distinguish these concepts. It does not mean "corner", as some sources have it.

Put them together and you get a unit composed of four provinces. "The four regions together" or "the group of four regions" is about as close as I can come to a literal rendering. "The united four regions" is a looser rendering, but it can't be called literal; as I say, -ntin doesn't mean "united".

Runasimita rimankichu? If not, best not to mess with that paragraph! Zompist 03:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concern with the proper rendering of Tawantinsuyu, but are not United and Together in the English language largely synonymous? The proverbs "United we stand, devided we fall" and "Together we stand, devided we fall" ean the same thing. Al-Andalus 08:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)".
They're close, but not synonyms. You can say "My father and I went together", but not "My father and I went united." Because Tawantinsuyu is awkward to translate, I don't mind using "united", but I don't think it should be called a literal translation. Best wishes, Zompist 14:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I guess that tetrarchy is not the word. It would mean four regions ruled by four tetrarchs. --Error 00:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chanca Confederacy

Not mentioned (or found in Wikipedia) is the people Pachacuti defeated... Trekphiler 21:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC) It exists in the Spanish version of the Wikipedia article.

[edit] Missed me

Also not mentioned (as far as I saw) are the wheel (didn't have it), alphabet (no), slaves (yes), currency (no), & highway system (24000km worth), plus the fact they did blood transfusions (or so I've read...). Trekphiler 14:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

So what's your point? You want to mention in the article that they didn't have the wheel or the use of writing? That's fine with me, but please also include the fact that despite these lacks of "civilized" ideas, the Inca were the largest empire in the whole New World, and also keep in mind that the entire New World (including the Aztec and Maya of Mesoamerica) also did not have the wheel, and the Aztecs themselves did not have an actual system of writing (it was rebus in form, so not considered an actual system). [[LinaInverse 02:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)]]

[edit] "Inca" as an ethnic group?

A number of pages refer to the Inca as an ethnic group. For example, Bolivia states "Bolivian culture has many Inca, Aymara and other indigenous influences in...". In my mind, it would be more correct to use the word "Quechua" rather than "Inca". Comments? --Bletch 17:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Inca is best reserved, I think, for (in descending order of propriety among academics) the ruler, royal family or empire. It's too narrow to be used interchangeably with Quechua. Interlingua 00:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inca Stonework

To the best of my knowledge, the method by which Inca archtects placed stones together has not been definitively determined. The article states with seeming certainty that stones were moved several times as they were placed and areas of compacted dust needed to be worked more. This method may have been used, but it is likely that they may have used a different method with large boulder-size stones which would have been very difficult to place more than once.

[edit] Rainbow flag

Quotation: Tawantinsuyu has a modern rainbow flag which is displayed throughout Peru. Does anyone know about a historical connection between Tawantinsuyu and the rainbow flag? What is the official status today? Thanks Roarjo 12:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Many hispanic and indigenous cronist relates about usage of a imperial standard, squared, called wiphala. Huhsunqu 22:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
See the wiphala article. I understand wiphala can be either a patchwork style or striped, is wiphala, huipala a generic (quechua) term for flag? Do you know a specific reference for the historical connection Tawantinsuyu-Wiphala? - Roarjo 08:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The references in the Wiphala article (e.g. [1]) do say that the wiphala is an ancient symbol, indeed predating the Incas. Here's an article in English which expresses some doubts on the antiquity, but still mentions the use of such standards during the Conquest. The Spanish Wikipedia article is a good deal more skeptical, suggesting that the rainbow was used, but that the long striped flag is probably European-inspired. The word is Aymara, though also used in Cuzqueño Quechua; its etymology is hard to trace, though there is plenty of speculation. Zompist 06:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I know that when I was in Cuzco over the summer, the Tawantinsuyu flag was flying alongside the Peruvian flag in the main square (Plaza de las Armas), so the official status today must be one of acceptance and pride. [[LinaInverse 02:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)]]

The flag has no historic background. It was an invention of Garcilaso de la Vega.--Gonzalo84 00:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding that there is no historical reference to an Inca or Tawantisuyo flag or banner until the early 1970's. The Spanish didn't chronicle any reference to a banner or flag attributable to the Inca. The gay rights movement wasn't in vogue at the time the banner was created 35 years ago. It's true that Cuzco flies the Rainbow Flag. But this is something that was initiated in the 1980's to please tourists by the mayor of the city. Furthermore, Peruvian president Alejandro Toledo (2001-2006) flew the Rainbow Flag in Lima's presidential palace as a political gesture since he is ethnically of Indian origin. Nevertheless, the Rainbow Flag was taken down for good by president Alan Garcia in July 2006 on the very day he took office. --Tito4000 20:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Early 20s, not early 70s... In Cuzco that is... Herle King 10:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

We should create an infobox to the page like the one in the Spanish Version.

Tawantinsuyu
Motto: (Quechua): Ama suwa, ama llulla, ama qilla
(Translated: You are not thief, you are not liar, you are not idle
Capital Cusco
Official language Quechua
Government
• Head of State		 Federal Empire
• Sapa Inca
Area 2.000.000 Km²
Population Around 15 million
Establishment 1250
Dissolution 1548
Time zone UTC -5

What do you think??Smertios 15:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Inca Maxims

The Inca maxims "Ama suwa, ama llulla, ama qilla" were translated as "you are...", while correct as a merely literal translation, it doesn't reflect the intended sentiment of the words. In Quechua, the "do not / do" or middle-ground between "is" and "is not" doesn't figure, so these mistakes are commonly made. (forgot to sign) Hdezela

I'm sorry, but I don't speak quechua. I translated it from the spanish edition. I guess you can feel free to change it... Smertios 13:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Check out the new Pre-Columbian templates

The original template is at Template:Pre-Columbian. The "new and improved" version is at Template:Pre-Columbian/Test.

Once we have a usable version of Template:Pre-Columbian/Test, we plan to move it into Template:Pre-Columbian and then insert it at the bottom of the Aztec, Maya civilization and Inca empire articles.

Discussion is at Template talk:Pre-Columbian. Please share any feedback and suggestions that you may have.

--Richard 19:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

There are two notes on the bottom of the page that point to nothing. Probably the place in the text they are referring to has moved somewhere else. Anybody know where? Piet 10:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed one, the other one was in the main text. Piet 14:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article size

OK, one person (Pietdesomere) moved a bunch of stuff out of this article, and someone else (Haham hanuka) slapped on an {{expand}} tag, neither with any discussion or explanation. Since these edits pull in completely opposite directions, I think there needs to be some discussion. Zompist 19:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The material that was removed appears to all have been moved to a brand new article called Inca society, created by User:Pietdesomere. Mona-Lynn 20:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, I've created some mess by moving stuff to different articles without discussing first. We were working more on the Aztec pages, trying to bring all the related articles into some structure by using Template:Aztec. Then one of us proposed the creation of a template for all pre-columbian cultures, Template:Pre-Columbian. The idea was to put this on all these pages to make navigating easier. In the mean time we had also split the Aztec article into different sections, and I decided a bit overenthousiasticly to start doing the same thing for the Inca Empire and Maya civilization pages. Discussions exist but in all the wrong places. To try and solve this in the future, we're probably going to start a Wikiproject around pre-columbian cultures, see Talk:Maya civilization. That way we can make these pages, especially the Aztec, Maya and Inca cultures, more coherent and comprehensive. More information will follow. One of the first things to do, this time after discussing first, will be to split up the lengthy pages that exist now into different topics to provide more clarity. I believe this is an essential step, but it involves some work because the main article must be able to stand on its own. I've broken it a bit now, again my apologies for this. More information will follow once the project gets going. In the mean time feel free to revert if you feel it necessary. Piet 21:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I was writing the following text at the same time that Piet was writing his comment above. He saved his first so I got a "edit conflict". Rather than try to remove the duplications, I will simply put here what I wrote and leave it to the reader to sort it out.
Yes, Piet and I have launched a grand project to organize and rationalize the articles related to pre-Columbian cultures and civilizations. The best way to appreciate our vision is to look at Template:Pre-Columbian.
As far as discussions regarding article size go, Piet has been bold and moved stuff out of overly long articles but not always done a perfect job of leaving behind an appropriate summary of the text that was moved. This is not a slam against Piet. Doing that well is not at all easy.
For example, I have just gotten criticized for moving too much text back into the History of the Aztecs article because I thought the editor User:Madman2001 had moved too much text out. It's really hard to get the right balance.
A similar complaint was raised regarding the Maya civilization article. Check out the topic "re breaking up into sub-articles" near the bottom of Talk:Maya civilization. That discussion led to the one following it titled "WikiProject Mesoamerica".
Please read those two topics and then weigh in on whether you might be willing to join a WikiProject called Wikipedia:Wikiproject Pre-Columbian.
Just to give you some context... Piet and I met while editing Hernan Cortes. Shortening that article involved moving stuff into Spanish conquest of Mexico. Well, of course, that led us to the Aztec article which then got us involved in shortening the Aztec article. It also led us to Spanish colonization of the Americas and ultimately to the Maya civilization and Inca empire articles. From there, it was a short leap to Pre-Columbian.
Along the way, we have created the following templates Spanish colonization of the Americas, Template:Aztec, Template:Maya and Template:Pre-Columbian. None of these are perfect and your assistance in improving these is solicited.
--Richard 21:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The flag, again

The Inca Empire had no flag, in fact the very notion of a flag was introduced in the Andes only with the Spanish conquest. As for the rainbow flag, it's an invention by twentieth century indigenist thinkers who wanted a symbol for the remembrance Inca past. It's based on a menion by the 17th century chronist, Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala, that the rainbow was part of the coat of arms of the incas. Of course that reference is also an attempt to mold inca culture into western standards, in this case Guaman Poma needed a coat of arms for the Incas to be on par with European monarchies. The point is that the Incas, and for that matter every other prehispanic state, had neither a flag nor a coat of arms. My suggestion would be to eliminate all reference to flags from this and related articles. What do you think? --Victor12 15:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As it seems nobody disagrees with the above I'm removing all reference to a flag of the Inca Empira except as a modern representation. --Victor12 23:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motto

I've removed the reference to a motto. Just as the flag, Ama sua, ama llulla and ama qella are modern inventions made by indigenist thinkers in the 19th or 20th centuries. There's no reference to them by any chronist or any other direct source whatsoever. The expression as such is not even gramatically correct quechua. --Victor12 23:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last para of intro

The last paragraph of the introduction seems like Original Research, is Unsourced, seems like a minority opinion and and is very difficult to comprehend. Can anyone resolve these problems?

From the European rationalist perspective, the Inca Empire has been seen like the utopia concretion. And its spectacular collapse under a group of Spanish soldiers has been seen as a logical consequence of the Spanish technological superiority, that took advantage of the Inca civil war triggered off by two pretenders to the throne. Nevertheless, this pragmatic interpretation tends to forget the destructive effects that the haughty collision between two antithetic Weltanschauungs produced in the harmony of the Inca Weltanschauung.

Ashmoo 05:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree-- it makes little if any sense, and if there is any point to it, it should be clearly stated... an encyclopedia is not a term paper. Zompist 17:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro could use work

The introduction seems unsatisfying; it seems skimpy (especially on religion and social structure), includes probably too much discussion of the name itself (which is discussed in a footnote anyway), and doesn't hold together well-- thus the temptation some people have, perhaps, to add even more unconnected material. I suspect it needs a rewrite. It might help to look at the French article, which seems to me to work better; for convenience, here's a (somewhat edited) translation. Zompist 21:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The word Inca is used to refer to the civilization of Pre-columbian America ruled by a dynasty of thirteen emperors, from its semi-legendary founder, the Inca Manco Capac, to Atahualpa, vanquished in 1532 by the Spanish conquistador Francisco Pizarro. As a title, the Inca was the supreme head of this state.
In a little less than a century, the Inca empire (Tahuantinsuyu, "the four regions" in Quechua) extended its power over a vast region of the Andes. At its height it extended from modern Colombia through Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Chile, a territory more than 4000 km long and covering an area of more than 3 million km². The capital was Cuzco, in present-day Peru.
One of the great achievements of this empire was to have integrated, with distinctive governmental practices, a heterogenous collection of cultures and peoples. More than 700 different languages were spoken in its territory; however, the Incas imposed Quechua as the official language.

[edit] Delisted GA

This article did not go through the current GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. Although references are provided, the citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 12:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Andes, and Pachacuti's Reign

Just to be clear, the Andes mountain range runs from north western South America all the way to Tierra del Fuego. Technically, from the Brooks Range in Alaska through the Canadian and American Rockies, through Central America, and on through to Tierra del Fuego, it is a single mountain range. Therefore, to say that Pachacuti conquered "most of the Andes" is inaccurate.

Insofar as Pachacuti's military conquests are concerned, he only conquered the southern Peruvian Andes—it was his son, Tupac Inca, who went on to conquer the rest of the Peruvian and Ecuadorian Andes.

Remember, Pachcuti controlled the army only until 1463—it was Tupac Inca who conquered the Ecuador highlands, and after Pachacuti's death became emperor. --TallulahBelle 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Pachacuti was still Inca, so the statement as you changed it is inaccurate. During Pachacuti's reign, the entire region from Ecuador to Peru came under Inca rule. It's fine to correct the statement about "most of the Andes"; you'll notice that I didn't restore that part. It's just not the case that during his reign the empire was limited to southern Peru. Zompist 23:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be more accurate to say that Pachacuti was not the one who initiated the northern expansion. Though it happened during the last years of his reign, the actual conqueror was Tupac Inca.--TallulahBelle 23:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it would. The point is, the current text is wrong. The statement in the text talks about his reign, not who the successful general was. There are several ways to fix it, but it is not accurate as it is. Zompist 04:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sapa Inca

I have noticed that there are two sections in this article (one in the beginning of "Emergence and Expansion", and another in the beginning of "Society") which translate "Sapa Inca" as two different things, one "paramount leader", and one "the unique Inca". Could someone who knows Quechua fix the incorrect one? CharonM72 04:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sapa means 'unique, only, alone'. (Source: the dictionary of the Academia Mayor, as well as Cusihuamán’s dictionary.) I just removed 'paramount leader' since "Sapa Inca" is already defined twice elsewhere in the article. Zompist 05:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article vandalism

This article seems to be a target for vandalism (quite a few times in the past few weeks). It would be wise to watch this page in the future for future nonsensical edits. --Bsdlogical 00:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The "History" heading seems to be messed up. I can't tell whether it's vandalizm, an accident, or someone's edit in progress, but I'm going to go ahead and fix it. Also going to make the "Origin" section part of the history section, since I'd think the origin of a civilization would ordinarily be considered part of its history. Sorry if this messes anybody up. Theyranos 01:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The reason this article is a target for vandalism is that students are using it to complete there homework. I guess they are frustrated having to do homework and take it out in a destructive manner. I hope the page protection does not prevent new users from helping to improve its quality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matses (talk • contribs) 11:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Removing popular culture references

If any of these "references" are relevant they should be put in the text. Most of them are not however, neither informative, noteworthy or interesting. I have cut the section from the article per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles and suggest than any relevant material be worked into the actual text. The text below is what i have cut:

References in popular culture

  • The Disney movie The Emperor's New Groove follows the adventures of a greedy emperor of a fictitious mountainous South American empire. While no direct reference is made to the Incas, the Emperor, Sun Symbols (signifying sun worship), architecture, articles of clothing (including the king's crown), fountains, road/bridge system, and llamas as beast of burden are all indicative of the Inca Empire. Also, the Emperor's name is Kuzco, an alternate spelling of Cuzco or Cusco, and the other main character, a wise farmer, is named Pacha, which is Quechua for earth or land.
  • The Inca are featured as a Native tribe in the popular computer game Age of Empires III.
  • The Inca are also featured in the PC/Mac game Rise of Nations.
  • The Incan emperor Huayna Capac is featured in the computer game Civilization IV. In the "Warlords" expansion pack, he has the traits "Financial" and "Industrious."
  • Games in the Lara Croft Tomb Raider franchise often involve the protagonist exploring Inca and Pre-Inca ruins. While many of these settings are fictitious, some such as Tiwanaku have basis in fact.
  • The are references to Inca in the SNES game Illusion of Gaia.
  • There exists a computer game series published by Sierra On-Line known as Inca. There are two titles in this series.
  • There are also a number of english words borrowed from Quechua (the Inca language): Coca, condor, jerky (from the quechua word Charqui), guano, llama, quinine, pampa, puma and quinoa.
The policy says "This guideline does not suggest deletion of trivia sections." In any case the contents are not trivia; except for the last item (which is already in the Quechua article), it is what it says it is: a "references in popular culture" section. Nothing in it should be merged into the rest of the article. All that said, I don't find it worth including. (I'm a Civ fan, but I don't look in Wikipedia to see what civs are included.) Zompist 20:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emergence and expansion

Most authorities, for example Terence D'Altroy in 'The Incas' Blackwell 2002, place Huayna Capac's conquests in the North, not the South, and attribute the Southern conquests, shown in bright green on the map, as the conquests of Tupac Inca. After all, it was Huayna Capac spending so much time in the North that laid the foundations for the civil war between Atahualpa, based in Quito, and Huascar at Cusco. I would suggest deleting the coloured map until it can be corrected, and re-writing the entry for Huayna Capac to read 'Tupac Inca's son Huayna Capac consolidated the Inca empire, especially in the North.' Then the entry would at least not be incorrect. Sorry, but I've not learned how to do corrections yet. Thelaybrother 23:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Rights Flag

Although I'm sure the Inca's looked kindly on homosexual rights, probably only beheading and heart roasting as a punishment, I just don't see how their flag applies to Inca Civilization. -anon-o-moss

That's the Inca flag. Check this out. You should have asked the opposite instead. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 14:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You may not see how - but that doesn't necessarily mean that others dont. read Gay_flag#Andean_peoples_and_social_movements Maunus 14:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
What i know is that the seven colours on the Inca flag symbolize the unity of indigenous peoples before the conquest. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 14:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

although some andean tribes use a similar flag today, it originates in an eighteenth century indian movement and is being considered for replacement- according to the obvious source, http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/xi.html#2b_hist. Whether it is eighteenth century or sixteenth century it is a post-conqeust flag mean't to represent the pre-conquest unity of the tribes of the andes. It is said to be a flag of the inca empire by these tribes just as the Union Jack or the Tricolor could be put on Norman England or Gaul. - a-non-o-moss

Whether it is posterior or anterior to the conquest is not a valid argument to remove the flag. You can add a footnote explaining that if you want. Once they'd replace it, we will surely do the same here. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 14:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


geez, if chronological order is just totally irrelevent then I suppose it would be as absolutely correct to use the Nazi Flag in reference to the Weimer Republic, East Germany, West Germany, Modern Germany... The Teutonics states, The Roman Territories in the area, the cave dwellings of germanic men-apes... As it would be in reference to the Third Reich itself. Thats absolute bullshit. Its an anachronism. "The Inca's were a small hamlet famous for their steel weapons, early invention of the wheel, gunpowder and steel weapons, and abundent horses. Also for their fervent Roman Catholic Christianity and conquest of pagan spain and portugal in the name of god, gold and glory in the 1100's under the great explorer Montezuma I" is an equal contradiction of history.


You are changing the topic Anonomoss. While confusion with the gay flag is not a good reason for removing the flag form the page the fact that the flag was not in use when the Inca empire existed may be a good reason, thats just not what we were discussing. please start that discussion and wait to see what the consensus says before removing the flag again.Maunus 22:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Inca "flag"

As I have mentioned earlier in this page, the Inca Empire had no flag, in fact there was no concept of "flag" in Prehispanic times. The (in)famous rainbow flag has only been associated with the Incas in modern times, probably in the XX century. That association was an invention of the indigenist movement which was in search of a symbol to represent andean people and their past. It's an anachronism to use such symbol to depict the Inca Empire and, as such, it must be removed. --Victor12 00:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If the Inca Empire did not have an official banner, its use here is misleading. According to the source, this is the flag of the indigenous Aymara and Quechua peoples -- and the constituents of an empire are not the same thing as the empire itself. The "black flags" mentioned at the bottom of the page might be more appropriate. -- bcasterline • talk 07:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. If there was a separate page on the modern indigenist movement I would use the flag there but not as a national flag of the Inca empire. However I would suggest using an actual photo or other kind of rendition of a wiphala design, or perhaps another piec of Inca art as a decorative symbol of the Inca empire in the infobox.Maunus 11:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Why a Wiphala? The same criticism that goes against using the flag applies for the wiphala. It must also be taken into account that there was no sense of nation, or even of an andean race in Inca times. Each local group had it's own identity and there wasn't any attempt to create a unified ethnicity for the whole of the Empire. The notion of "andean people" or the "indians" as a united entity arose only in colonial times and wasn't widely accepted by andean communities until well after Independence and the creation of the indigenist movements. In my opinon a better choice for the start of the article would be a map of the Tahuantinsuyo. --Victor12 16:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Purely for decorative reasons. If it's not claimed to be a national symbol of the inca empire then I think any decorative thing with a connection to inca culture could g in that spot in the infobox. I suppose a map is alrihgt as well.Maunus 21:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Victor that this might not have being the flag of Inca Empire, but it has to be pointed the fact that it is used currently as a modern representation of the Inca Empire, whether we like it or not. --Elnole 04:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The flag of the viceroyalty of New Spain is also inappropriate as the struggle is between Spain, or even more accurately - the Holy roman Empire of which Charles V is emperor and the Inca and his flag should be one of these two: King of Aragon and Castile
. Further the article is 'Inca Empire'. On the other hand, modern flags are often used anachronistically in wiki articles the tri-color of France is used for New France instead of the royal Bourbon flag. Finally, the Viceroyalty of New Spain is a separate entity from the Viceroyalty of Peru.Tttom1 (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
True enough, however, why have you added a Standard of Viceroyalty of Peru section? It seems quite out of place in the Inca Empire article. --Victor12 (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you are right, I had removed New Spain flag from info box which directs to Viceroyalty of Peru article where it probably should be as I'm confused why the New Spain flag is in the Peru article. I'll move that there.Tttom1 (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It does seem that the Inca carried some kind of a flag in the most general sense like a vexillum or standard - this is supported by two primary sources - the quote in spanish and the link to the codex illustration. I can't speak to the accuracy of the rainbow flag as being the same as the flags written of or illustrated.Tttom1 (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually there are several problems with that source. Guaman Poma wrote his manuscript around 1615, eighty years after the Spanish conquest and the fall of the Inca Empire. As such, his mention of an Inca "flag" is regarded by scholars more as a form of incorporating the Inca in Western traditions rather than as a definite proof of the existance of such a symbol in Pre-hispanic times. There's simply no evidence that the Incas had a notion of "flag", "coat of arms" or other such European notions before the Spanish conquest. --Victor12 (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
There are two sources: one is an illustration, visual evidence, that supportsthe other: the written. The use of 'flag' is generic and not specific to Europe, vexilology, the study of flags, is derived from vexillum, defined in wiki as 'flag-like', not a flag in the modern european sense. Which scholars dispute the statement that the Inca carried a flag-like, identifying symbol such as the one shown in the illus. that looks a lot like a vexillum? In the modern sense, flags take many forms with standards for cavalry and colors for infantry, jacks and ensigns for others,etc.. So, there is some evidence. If you mean that Poma's illustration (not Cobo's written account) I see little in the picture that suggests anything other than an attempt to show Inca as Inca. Again, I can't speak to the accuracy of the rainbow flag, but the Inca are renowned for their fabric and dyes. So, while the modern fabric and drape may be different the colors are possible and the claim is that the written account supports the rainbow design.Tttom1 (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's a website that quotes various sources on Inca flags, or 'unancha': http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://amautacuna.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_archive.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=5&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DBernab%25C3%25A9%2BCobo,%2BHistoria%2Bdel%2BNuevo%2BMundo%2Bel%2Bgui%25C3%25B3n%2Bo%2Bestandarte%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG also: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://amautacuna.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_archive.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=5&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DBernab%25C3%25A9%2BCobo,%2BHistoria%2Bdel%2BNuevo%2BMundo%2Bel%2Bgui%25C3%25B3n%2Bo%2Bestandarte%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG. Both of these are google-translated however they both suggest more than one reference to flags or banners.Tttom1 (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
As for visual evidences, as I said before, Guaman Poma wrote his chronicle many years after the Inca Empire had dissappeared, he's just adapting European models of what an Empire should have, for instance flags. As for written sources, Cobo's chronicle, which provides the only detailed description of an Inca flag is even later than Guaman Poma. So yes, the Inca were renowned for their textiles, but that doesn't mean they had flags even in a wider sense. As for scholars, I'm away from my sources today, I can give you some quotes tomorrow. In the meantime: [2], [3]. Check specially the last source as it cites an statement by the Peruvian National History Academy declaring that there was no notion of flag among the Incas. --Victor12 (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he wrote later, but he was, or claims, to have been born in 1535?, but he's not Gibbons, I don't see how you can claim that he introduced that particular slanted visual when there are no other anachronisms in those particular drawings. I can't read entirely your current spanish sources without some sort of translation but I can see they disagree. However, I presented you with loosely translated links of far more contemperous than the modern historians you link. So simply, there may be debate, there may be attempts at later refutation but it can't be said there are no statements that support the Incas using what can be called a 'flag' in the same sense that a vexillum is a flag in the generic sense. Even if the modern sources you state dispute the other earlier sources I don't see how that many references can be dismissed as 'no evidence'. I don't disagree with you that the Inca 'flags' were not the same as European flags and probably didn't use a heraldry like spain's, so what - that doesn't mean they didn't have 'unancha'. These appear to be well attested in primary and near primary accounts according to the above links.Tttom1 (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I got a loose translation of your 2nd link, I see what you mean but further down in that blog ZIMON said: Francisco Lopez de Jerez, author of the first official version True relationship of the conquest of Peru and Cusco province, called the New Castile (1534), states the Inca had flags.Tttom1 (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, some further points
  • As for anachronisms in Guaman Poma, there are plenty, both in his drawings and in his text. As his chronicle is online thanks to the Copenhagen Library, that's easy to corroborate. The website is [4]. Just check the pages I'll mention. On page 92, there's a drawing of Bartholomew the Apostle preaching in Peru way before the Spanish Conquest (Guaman Poma places the event around the year 40 AD). On page 110, it shows Tupac Inca Yupanqui wearing an attire decorated with arabic numerals (there are several other instances of this). On page 167, it shows a coat of arms for an Inca captain which has a lion rampant, stangely similar to the one in the coat of arms of the Kingdom of León. On page 392, there's a drawing of the execution of Atahualpa, it shows the Inca being beheaded which is quite wrong as he was executed by garrote. Those are just a few examples of anachronisms in his chronicle, there are plenty more in his drawings and text. The point here is that one should not take chronicles at face value. That applies specially to Guaman Poma who even if he was biologically fully indigenous, culturally he had an Hispanic culture and was a devout Catholic. For more info on this you can read the introduction to the Nueva Corónica by Rolena Adorno at [5]
  • As for the links, I'm sorry I gave you untranslated links, I thought you speak Spanish. Anyway, your links (actually only one as both point to the same page) only cite one modern historian is Juan José Vega, born in 1932 and dead in 2003, not exactly the most up to date Peruvian historian. Here is one more credible account about the unancha, in its original Spanish and roughly translated by me:
[Santa Cruz Pachacuti] alude al "estandarte de los yngas" que nunca describe: solo dice que se guardo en el templo del Cuzco. El lector moderno pensará, por qué no, en una bandera con escudo o algo así. Es lo que hicieron los cronistas al imaginar un estandarde y un escudo de armas de los reyes incas y, como las del yanque [Santa Cruz Pachacuti], sus vagas menciones son vagas en demasía. En materia de detalles algunos cronistas tardíos se atreven más. En el imaginativo Garcilaso (edición de 1609), en Guaman Poma o en Murúa hay dibujos de típicos escudos españoles, acuartelados con motivos andinos al escoger [...] Cobo da una descripción minuciosa [sigue cita]. Pero todo es demasiado europeo. Y aún el pasaje de Cobo fue escrito a 120 años de la invasión, quizás para suplir la total carencia de datos en la crónica más antigua, la primaveral, que de haber tocado estas cosas la habría hecho con menor ignorancia de causa. Airón de la heráldica española en los Andes, banderas y escudos de armas de los reyes incas son temas muy propios de la crónica otoñal, la tardía y madura que, cegada la veta de la indagación presentista, apela a la conjetura y la glosa, la adaptación y la fantasía. Carlos Araníbar, "Índice analítico y glosario". En: Juan de Santa Cruz Pachacuti. Relación de Antigüedades de este Reino del Perú. Lima: FCE, 1995, pp. 401-402.
[Santa Cruz Pachacuti] mentions the "standard of the Incas" which he never describes: he only says that it was kept in the Cuzco temple. The modern reader would think, why not, in a flag with a coat of arms or something like that. That's what chroniclers did, imagining a standard and a coat of arms of the Inca kings and, like those of the yamque [Santa Cruz Pachacuti], their vague mention are way to vague. Regarding details, some late chroniclers dare further. In the imaginative Garcilaso (1609 edition), in Guaman Poma or in Murua there are drawings of typical Spanish coat of arms, divided in fields with Andean motifs to choose [...] Cobo gives a detailed description [quote follows]. But everything is too european. And even Cobo's description was written 120 years after the Spanish conquest, probably to compensate for the total lack of information in the earlier chronicles, which if it had dealt with these things, it would have done it with less ignorance about the subject. Crest of Spanish heraldry in the Andes, flags and coat of arms of the Inca kings are proper themes of the late chronicle, which unable to do its own research appeals to conjecture, gloss, adaptation and fantasy. Carlos Araníbar, "Analytical Index and Glosary". In: Juan de Santa Cruz Pachacuti. Relación de Antigüedades de este Reino del Perú. Lima: FCE, 1995, pp. 401-402.
  • BTW some dates of the chronicles which describe "Inca flags": Guaman Poma: 1615, Garcilaso: 1609, Murúa: 1613, Cobo: 1653. --Victor12 (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's ok you couldn't know I don't speak spanish, I got one weirdly translated by google. Thanks, they're great. I meant there was no sign of anachronism in the illustration with the flags. As to other chapters, he undoubtedly got some things wrong but anecdotal errors can't be used to draw generalizations about the entire work, or even other sections. If one thing is wrong and 20 are right the conclusion is: one is wrong and 20 right, not all are wrong. So, these chronicles which describe 'flags' all predate your current historians and are the sources for their work. And there is Francisco Lopez de Jerez comtemporary 1534 statement. I went thru all of Poma's drawings and I'm afraid your historians' critique applies anecdotal evidence from the heraldic graphic convention used on pp167-171 of a shield to generalize about the flags in others. In any case there is nothing to contradict Poma's clear depictions of flags or the other mention in early chronicles except an unsubstantiated theory that they were europeanizing the Inca. Poma's drawings show a keen eye for costume and fabric as well as demonstating the transition, over time as the book progresses, of the Inca culture. In any case, the situation is that there is evidence and not 'no evidence'. The debate could be outlined as long as both points of view are discussed which is the current state except the 'no flag' side has no references supporting their claims. I have footnoted all Poma's relevant illustrations including his very able depictions of Spanish heraldry which show, I think, that he generally understands heraldic convention and is not trying to use Inca symbols in the same way other than to indicate they have them in the similar shorthand of the convention. The Spanish application is much different from the Inca aside from the fact that they are on the conventional shield. Further I have removed fact tag from the art where the fact follows the statement and I had added attribution needed tags in the 1st paragraph because phrases like 'some people' etc. are not attributable and are frowned on by WP. The final paragraph in that section needs rewrite to improve that section as it egregiously makes unverified, and probably unverifiable, statements as to motive on the rainbow flag use.Tttom1 (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

When there is criticism of the cronistas for being late and too Europeanized, the question arises: compared to what? We have to look at these sources critically, but we don't generally have better sources to oppose them with. And as Vega's article makes clear, many of the sources referring to flags are much earlier than Cobo. Francisco López de Jerez's work appeared in 1534; Gonzálo Fernández de Oviedo wrote in the 1530s; Pedro Cieza de León did his research in the 1540s; Fray Domingo de Santo Tomás's lexicon appeared in 1560. (Note, these are sources for the existence of Inca flags, not for the rainbow banner in particular.) Zompist (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point and thanks for other chronista leads. It would be great to have the page for reference in those. I'm not claiming the modern rainbow flag is the Inca flag either, altho there seems to be a derivation from a couple of places, or at least Coba - but I haven't seen a clear translation and my Spanish in non-existent.Tttom1 (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... the problem is that you shouldn't pit primary sources against secondary sources as that would be original research. The consensus of historians dealing with this issue is that there was no notion of "flag" in the Inca Empire thus, Vega is an exemption rather than the rule. Guaman Poma is a classic example of Europeanization, in his chronicle he tries to incorporate Andean History into the context of Western History, as mentioned in the article by Adorno I mentioned before. As such he states that the Andes had been christinized by an Apostle, so as to prove that they are part of the Christian God's plan, among many others things. So please don't take the Nueva Corónica literally, it must be placed in its context. As for other chroniclers, they also should be taken carefully. The earliest ones, such as Jerez didn't understand what they saw, so they tried to explain it in their own (European) terms. That's why they describe mosques, people dressed as moors, as well as kings and popes in the Andes. All chroniclers should be read very carefully and with the aid of secondary sources to explain their context, purpose and probable meaning. Finally, regarding lexicons, they also incorporate neologisms, for instance, Santo Tomas mentions the word "illapa", quechua for "thunder" as also meaning "arquebus" that doesn't mean there were such weapons in Prehispanic times. There are many others such examples. The point is we should stick to secondary sources and the overwhelming majority of reliable sources (those written by proffesional historians) agree on the non existance of the "flag". --Victor12 (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not taking Poma literally, you should try not to draw generalizations from anecdotal evidence. A clear statement that the Incas had flags, illustrations of such flags does not constitute OR, just research. I didn't pit primary vs secondary- I referenced the sources that say there were flags. No references that refutes those and concluding no flags constitutes OR, drawing conclusions about possible unrelated neologisms to refute flags is OR. You can't explain away what is there and conclude - no flags. There is evidence that there were flags. You can show there is opinion against flags that contest the sources for flags, but you can't say the flags don't exist without violating NPOV. Zompist's point is well founded - compared to what and who? Unless you can show some real evidence the flag references themselves are false all you can say is there is some debate between these modern scholars who say no flags and those modern scholars who say there are flags.Tttom1 (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The thing is that there's no such debate among modern scholars, most agree there were no flags, as I said before Vega is just an exception, not the rule. This need to be clear in the text. As a second point we should stick to secondary sources rather than primary ones for the text. As a third point, what's the point of having a link to http://platypus01.actewagl.net.au/safant/articles/inca_banners.html in the external links section? It is a wargamming site, not an academic website. It should be removed in my opinion. --Victor12 (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The point is that your previous contention that there is no evidence of Inca flags is demonstrably incorrect - there's plenty of evidence in various sources. Further, there's obviously a debate and I have seen no references that demonstrate a vast majority of sources say otherwise. Three sources, one primary( Jerez) and 2 secondary sources,( Poma and Coba), indicate there are flags; Zompist mentions 4 more chronista above that mention flags, I see no need to check them unless they go into the article, but I bet he's correct. The link to the wargame site shows the pertinent illustrations from Poma, they are also included in the footnote on the library link to Poma's book but are more easily accessable on the other site. Other Poma illustrations are used in WK and probably those are in the public domain as well, but given some of the resistance here to even saying there are flags, I'm disinclined to go thru the effort of clearing and upload one. I think the existence of flag side is sufficiently established to say there were flags and mention there is some kind of debate from modern historians. But without clear references to the books & page #s of those objecting historians such a statement is without attribution and subject to deletion as such. If you want to dig those up go right ahead, it will clarify the NPOV in this section of the article. Tangentially to the flags because it contains information about Inca family emblems and symbols and it explains some is DON JUAN DE SANTA CRUZ PACHACUTI-YAMQUI SALCAMAYHUA, from: Narratives of the Rites and Laws of the Yncas trans. and ed. by Clements R. Markham 1873Tttom1 (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll have to concede that there's some evidence for the use of flags. As for source, Cobo as well as Guaman Poma are both primary sources as well as Santa Cruz Pachacuti. I'll look for modern books on the subject to attempt a rewritte on this issue. As for Santa Cruz, I already knew about him, in fact i have quoted above an intro to his chronicle made by a Peruvian historian. As for the wargamming site, I still think it needs to be removed as it is not an scholarly sources (it recognizes so) and furthermore it is used in the "External links" section rather than as an inline citation for the paragraph on the flag (so it doesn't help accesibility for readers as it is not linked from the text). I see no point in keeping it. Greetings, --Victor12 (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I was following your argument above that Como and Poma wrote later and therefore are secondary sources while Jerez is a primary source. I'm sure the wargame site illos are covered in the footnote on Poma, so its redundant, altho convenient. I rewrote the section yesterday based on what we have at this point. Specifically removing opinion statements someone had entered from the discussion above while I made statements about the debate over flags unloaded with what appears to be Peruvian politics. If you can provide modern secondary sources to reference the debate then NPOV will be satisfied. I notice the rest of the article is mostly unreferenced. Best.Tttom1 (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll try to get some secondary sources at least for this section. The article as a whole still needs lots of work. --Victor12 (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English Wikipedia

Can someone please provide English translations of the two Spanish quotes by Francisco López de Jerez and Bernabé Cobo as it is very inappropriate to have them in their original form which cannot be read or understood by the vast majority of readers of the article. - Galloglass 21:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Zompist did one, I have another which is in agreement with his: "They all came divided up in squads with their flags and commanding captains, with as much order (or harmony) as the Turks." and: "… the “guión” or royal standard (an ecclesiastical processional banner) was a small, square banner, of about 10-12 inches (“palmos de ruedo” is a measure from those times and it refers to a small amount/size.), made of cotton or woolen cloth, that was carried at the top of a long flagpole, and was stiff, with no wave on the air; each king painted his arms and emblems (badges) on the banner; because each one (king) chose different ones (paintings on his banner), although the common ones among the Incas had a celestial arch."Tttom1 15:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irrigation

No mention of coastal desert irrigation and their status[6] as a hydraulic empire? --Belg4mit 07:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Innovations in desert irrigations probably predated the Inca Empire by many centuries. This probably is best contributed to on a separate article rather than this one. --Matses 11:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand, I did not say that they invented desert irrigation, or were even the first to irrigate this region. Please read the hydraulic empire entry, and linked resource for a clue. --Belg4mit 18:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Religion

The bit on Inca religion directly contradicts the Inca mythology page. Here it says that a common misconception is that the Inti is the primary god; on the mythology page it suggests that the Inti was the foremost god from whom the emperors were descended. Which is it? 70.23.10.28 23:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Anonymous

I have read in the "Comentarios Reales de los Incas" by Inca Garcilaso de la Vega that Inti was the main god promoted by the Inca rulers. Pachamama predates Inti and was a much more popular deity in all the Andes (she is still worshiped today !), but the Inca nobles wanted to impose Inti as the main god.
I'll try to find more sources.
XtoF

[edit] 1197

the infobox states "1197" as the foundation of Tawantinsuyu. I've never heard of that, and it shows no sources, as far as i know... everything about the story of Manco Capac seems to point to an uncertain chronology. so does anyone know why "1197" was put as the date? was it just a convenient date to put up? --Hno3 02:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

False precision... we don't have that accurate a chronology of Incas. ~1200 would be better. Zompist 06:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] about subdivisions banners

Divisions 4 suyos (regions)

Chinchaysuyo
Antisuyo
Contisuyo
Collasuyo

I put this on the infobox, but victor12 reminded me that rainbow flags were not appropiated, maybe should be put the in a separate section near bottom? --Andersmusician $ 05:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do they need to be in the article at all? The Incas had neither banners nor notions of banners, flags or coat of arms --Victor12 21:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beliefs

Can someone write about the beliefs the Incas had. I am a student and I am getting annoyed from trying to find this information. I am not going to vandalise this page, but I just need some information on the relationship to the land that the Incas had. And maybe some stuff on Inca warfare. Never mind that. I will just add some stuff about the Inca weapons. Feel free to edit that to correct any mistakes I make. Efansay 10:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language

Currently, the article states that all people had to speak Quechuan. Is theis correct? Wasn't Aymara tolerated? Kdammers 04:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not true. See Mannheim, The Language of the Inka since the European Invasion, chapter 2, for a discussion. Many other languages were spoken in Inca territory, though Quechua was widely used as a lingua franca. One chronicler, Rodrigo de Cantos, speaking of Ayacucho, notes that only the leaders were required to speak Quechua. Zompist 01:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

well i have never herd of the incas and know im stuck doing a project on them and i cant find anything cause this sucks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.99.93 (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tawantin Suyu, Tawantin-Suyu, or Tawantinsuyu?

On wikipedia I've seen all 3 names being used, but I don't suppose all of them could be right. Which is the correct word that should be used as a constant?MarshalN20 23:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The literature on the Incas almost always uses Tawantinsuyu, one word. Llajwa 23:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Machu Picchu picture under "The Last Incas"

I removed the Machu Picchua picture from the "Last Incas" section, explaining my reasons, but another editor reverted without comment. This image does not belong in the section, because it implies a long-since discredited theory (but which is still kicking around some of the popular literature) that Machu Picchu was the same as Vilcabamba, the fabled, lost city of the "Last Incas," who maintained their independence between Pizarro's conquest of Tawantinsuyu and viceroy Toledo's defeat and execution of Tupac Amaru. In fact, Machu Picchu was a royal estate built by a pre-Pizarro Sapa Inca.

The Machu Picchu picture is lovely, and could appropriately illustrate another section of the article (which, however, if full of nice images). But putting it here is not just inappropriate, but very misleading.

Comments?Llajwa 18:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree Machu Pichu doesn't represent most of Inca history, machu pichu was builtnearly at the end of the empire.--Andersmusician VOTE 18:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes the Machu Picchu image is is inappropriate in its current placement. Possibly the best place to include the picture is with the Monumental architecture section? - Galloglass 02:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki in Spanish

There are many good articles about incas in Spanish. It would be interesting if someone can translate some articles from there =) --Yapxo (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DA INCAS SUCK!!!!!!! DICK

THE INCAS ARE VEYR VEYR GAYY AND VERY VERY WERID DID YOU KNOW THEY HAVE 3 PINISES —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.202.191 (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)