Talk:Inca Empire/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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: [1], [2]. 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 [3]. 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 [4]
• 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)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3