Talk:Caral

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 11 March 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sam Wege (article contribs). Peer reviewers: CantrellL, YumoLu.

Unsigned Comment

guys, you can delete this whenever you want, just a once-in-a-while wikipedia viewer, i dont fully trust this site, but its nice to see a page on Peru's earliest civilization, especially after the peru article has become a total mess, keep up the good work.

Copyvio?

Possibel copy-vio. from [1]? Or is this a mirror of wikipedia? --Banana04131 00:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a mirror site, not a copyvio. Look at the bottom of the link's page: The source of this article is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL. --Viriditas | Talk 09:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh. thanks. --Banana04131 20:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

2627 BCE?

How is a number that implies a precision of a year arrived at? (i.e. why is it 2627 and not 2628 or 2626? should it just be 2600 implying +/- 50 years?) RJFJR 16:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It's worse than that, because in the next paragraph the city is described as 5000 years old. By my admittedly unreliable arithmetic, from the first figure it should be only 4600 to 4700 years old. I'd be inclined to say it was founded around 2600 BCE and was over 4600 years old when Dr. Shady worked there. I've seen a quote by one of Dr. Shady's collaborators saying that civilization in the larger area dates back to 3000 BCE, and that's probably the source of the figure of 5000 years--but it doesn't seem to belong to Caral. TECannon 15:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

yes, the 2627 figure should only be quoted in the immediate context of the carbon dating the result of which it is. 83.76.222.140 12:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

They can build pyramids but make little else.

Is it not strange that a civilization that has the knowledge to build such amazing structures with precision and organise a society so peaceful, no evidence of day to day necessities has been found? Its seems they understood how to create instruments, enjoy themselves and relax by using aphrodisiacs, they can make reed baskets to carry stones to build the pyramids. They set their city out in a planned and well organised way and organise the people to work on these. But, these people would need food, water, clothing, somewhere to sleep as the climate conditions could be extreme in Caral. I can understand that they may roast food over a fire, therefor no need for plates but something would be needed to drink from as would crops and food to be stored. Making a drinking cup or bowl out of bones is possible but surley there would be evidence of this. Surley sharp implements of some kind would be necessary to kill animals for food etc...even sharpened wooden spikes. I find it incredible that there are no answers to these simple questions. Surley if they can build such monumental structures they could make a cup or bowl albeit out of reeds, bones etc...or simple hunting tools. It does seem that when there are no answers to these questions they get overlooked in the hope that knowbody will notice. 86.134.13.112 11:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the lack of evidence that they used eating, storage and cooking utensils implies that they never used them. It's important to note that not all artifacts from "any" ancient civilization are going to be readily discovered. My feeling is that the researchers will have to dig every surrounding centimeter of land surrounding Caral in order to find these minute artifacts of usage.--71.198.200.222 02:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Not only the utensils for everyday activities are missing, but so are the facilities, such as housing, water supply, etc. This has led some researchers, such as Professor Krzsysztof Makowski to believe that Caral was in fact not what could be called a city. The pyramidal mounds (which are indeed a very basic architectural structure) would have been built over the course of thousands of years, using a rather reduced workforce. No high level management or political structure would have been necessary. Therefore, heavy doubt is cast over the claim of Caral being the first "civilization" of the continent, since all the findings can be explained by a more parsimonious, elegant theory. General belief in the Peruvian archaeological community is that Caral's importance is being (widely) exaggerated in order to attract more tourism, and also to assure the financial support by the government of Peru trough enhancing the country's ego ("national self-esteem" in the words of Ruth Shady"

There are irrigation ditches all around caral, which is where the water came from. In addition, the entire site is littered with cotton seeds and relics of fiber. The people there were certainly growing the cotton, which requires not only a water supply, but also a workforce. In addition, there are lots of fish bones, mostly of anchovies and sardines. Perhaps the Peruvian government is hyping the area to benefit from tourism, but that doesn't count against the culture that lived at Caral. I live in Pennsylvania, where the Amish are touted as a big tourist attraction. But in spite of the marketing, the Amish do exist. It's not been staged! This "parsimonious, elegant theory" you speak of sounds rather odd. You're arguing that Caral is "not what could be called a city" despite evidence of large cashcrop agriculture, trade with tribes along the coast and east into the Amazon, irrigation to make the agriculture possible, fish imported from twenty miles away, and of course a labor force to make all this happen. Also, the lovingly buried baby suggests family life, not a shamanistic retreat for elders only. I'd love to hear how your theory accounts for all this.72.78.6.125 (talk) 05:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4092265217728346257

Norte Chico

I started a page on the Norte Chico civilization today. It seems to me that the Caral page was written when the city was considered the "mother city" and thus it has been described/linked in various places as synonymous with the civilization itself. This doesn't appear to be the case--it is one of many and may not be the oldest. The research is very new. Anyhow, editors welcome at the new page. Marskell 15:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

See Also

Hi Gene, I saw that you reverted my edits on a couple of pyramid related pages to include links to the pages on Ukrainian and Bosnian pyramids (and for links to the pyramid category as well). I just wanted to clarify why these links do not belong. The Bosnian "pyramid" is considered a hoax. If the digging on the Bosnian hill does eventually reveal a pyramid, then the links are justified. However, until proof of a pyramid is found, the site remains a hill, with an archeologically significant medieval village on top. In the case of the Ukrainian pyramid, the press simply carried a wrong impression of the site into the popular culture. This innacuracy was soon clarified by the archaeologist in charge. Hiberniantears 12:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not revert the external links sections of pyramid articles again. I am well aware that the Bosnian and Ukrainian "pramids" are not really pyramids, and that the scientific consensus supports this - however that is entirely beside the point; the main reason they are known by most people is because some people claimed they were pyramids; it is not for us to make value judgements concerning those claims; our job is simply to provide links to all pyramid-elated articles and let people read those articles and decide for themselves. The "see also" list is a list of related subjects - it is not merely a list of "legitimate pyramids". --Gene_poole 01:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think when something is either falsely called, or accidentally called, something it is not, no reasonable source of information would list it said entity under the misleading heading. For example, when a toddler calls a car a boat, the rest of the world does not have to amuse the toddler by now considering cars as boats "because some people claimed they were" boats. I realize you're taking an inclusionist stance on this, and I respect that. However, I think the fact that the articles themselves are already improperly named is inclusionist enough. Including the Ukrainian and Bosnian "pyramids" in a list of legitimate pyramids is very efficient way to undermine any intellectual weight this encyclopedia has. I think making lists of things which are entirely opposed to the scientific consensus (and in the case of the dig site in Ukraine, against the stated clarification by the archaeologist leading the dig) is irresponsible. To that end, I am once again making my reverts, but in the interest of fairness, I am also moving this conversation to the talk pages of the articles. Hiberniantears 12:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• One further point. This list, when it includes the disputed assortment of pyramids, becomes a fine example of Wikipedia:Listcruft. Hiberniantears 18:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The "see also" section is meant to be a list of articles broadly related to the article subject. It is not intended merely as a list of "directly related subjects" - or in this case, a list of "authentic pyramids". Deliberately expunging links to articles on clearly related subjects as you are attempting to do constitutes an inappropriate application of a personal POV to the editing process; it is not our place to be making value judgements of this nature. I am consequently restoring the article to the default position prior to your edits. If you feel this is inappropriate, you may wish to establish a straw poll on the subject to help establish community consensus on the subject before attempting to implement further changes. --Gene_poole 22:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To Anon

An anon keeps showing up to change things here and elsewhere on the site. To get a few things straight:

• Caral is not the oldest city in the region.
• It is not necessarily the largest.
• The civilization is called Norte Chico in English language sources, including the 2001 paper coauthored by Shady.

So please anon, stop changing this. Marskell 14:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Marskell, I missed the anon's edits in my last revert. The specific IP in question is User:190.40.176.221, and I left a note on their talk page. Hiberniantears 14:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thx. I also left the person a note yesterday, but at a slightly different IP. S/he may not see them and may then show up again to make the same change. If it happens again, I may semi-protect this and Norte Chico. Marskell 14:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I s-protected Norte Chico today. The 2001 paper does not use the name Norte Chico, but the larger rationale holds; I have explained this at Talk:Norte_Chico_civilization. Hopefully, this will get through to the anon. Marskell 18:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible Copy-vio & Rewrite

This site: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_caral.htm claims to be a copy of an article from "Frontier Magazine 8.3 (May 2002)", and reads as a nearly perfect copy of this article, with superior formatting and spacing. The way the text is bunched together in this article and the marked similarity of the text implies that there are potential copyright problems with this page. Beyond the copyvio, the tone and structure of the article's a hair off too. Flagged for rewrite. Hoping to find time to finish it myself over the next week or two, but it'd be nice to have someone more familiar with the subject beat me to it. MrZaius^talk 16:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly reposted by the author here: http://www.philipcoppens.com/caral.html If not, it's still definitely the source for the bibliotecapleyades link MrZaius^talk 16:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I've uploaded a number of pictures I took at Caral to the Commons[2] (Mine are "Caral 1.jpg" through "Caral 9.jpg") and I wanted to replace one of the copies of the "Pyramid at Caral" pictures with this one:

Panerama of the pyramids at Caral

I'll plan on switching it in a few days if I hear nothing. If you would rather a different picture replace the duplicate let me know. Also I can do some color correction on any of the images if you think it is needed. KyleT 17:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Caral location

The map within the article shows Caral located way out in the Pacific ocean, at the edge of the continental slope. I reverted the joke, and put Caral back on solid ground. Freederick 19:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edition because Caral is not located in the highland areas of the Andes nor in the Pacific Ocean. The actual location is in a coastal region of central Peru. Further informartion here: Norte Chico civilization#History and geography. --Awkawasi 23:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Freederick was right. The map showed Caral in the Pacific Ocean instead of the Peruvian coast. I've edited the map accordingly. --Victor12 18:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Addition of video link?

I have recently seen a BBC Horizon documentary regarding Caral, and thought putting the link to it on this page might be useful. The documentary is from 2007, but it still suggests Caral to be a "mother city," which I gather from this talk page is no longer current. I thought the addition of the link might be useful to anyone interested in the basics of Caral. I found it very informative: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4092265217728346257

Sound good?72.78.6.125 (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't. That BBC documentary is not from 2007 but from 2002 (you mistook the posting for the production date) and it is full of mistakes. 66.50.201.151 (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad article, it would be better to substitute it by the spanish one

This article is so poor, bad and misinformed that I for one am convinced that it should be a greater service to Wikipedia to completely change it and substitute it for a better one, perhaps a translation of the spanish article on the same subject which is far superior. Regarding the information used, this article is practically a bad copy of the 2002 BBC Documentary over Caral, which is full of wishfull thinking and bad science. Carlos Tirado 66.50.201.151 (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like some specifics about what is bad about it please. I am told it is not bad at all by someone who knows quite a bit about Caral.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Cornet?

"In one of the pyramids they uncovered 32 flutes made of condor and pelican bones and 37 cornets of deer and llama bones."

Cornet links to a page about a brass instrument of the same name. They had brass instruments back then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.30.25.225 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"“Clearly, music played an important role in their society,” says Shady."[3]--Doug Weller (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cocaine flutes

http://anthropogene.blogspot.com/2007/02/mother-city-of-flutes-cocaine-and.html Wk 85 (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation Needed

"Caral was inhabited between roughly 2600 BC and 2000 BC, enclosing an area of 66 hectares.[1]"

The footnoted source gives the dates but NOT the size. I'm moving the citation and adding anote that the size needs to be cited. 209.162.56.97 (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A website already listed as an external link: http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/hacop/CaralPeru.htm states "The site's central area covers more than 150 acres..." That is over 60 ha. for the central area which supports the un-cited 66 ha. statement, though it implies the whole settlement was larger than that. 209.162.56.97 (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I found the article on the NY Times and what appears to be a stable url for it. I referenced that and changed the ha. measurement to "more than 60." I then removed the Evergreen University link from the external links section since it is now redundant, but I'm leaving it here in case that NY Times url proves unstable, since I had some trouble finding a url that worked at all. 209.162.56.97 (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Musical Instruments paragraph

The "Musical Instruments" paragraph isn't convincing. It is implied that "coronets" are musical instruments, whereas as far as I can tell from the references what is meant is actual coronets, that is, small crowns worn on the head. Also flutopedia doesn't appear to be a WP:RS although possibly it contains references to usable sources. I'd rather leave the corrections to those who know more about the subject, but if no-one does it I'll have a go at some stage. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Turns out it should have been "cornets", and Ruth Shady is the main source plus a Smithsonian article. I've changed the reference and spelling. I don't know if it's worth adding Shady's comment that “Clearly, music played an important role in their society”.

. “Clearly, music played an important role in their society,”

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/firstcity.html#ixzz2DivHmbbV Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

. “Clearly, music played an important role in their society,”

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/firstcity.html#ixzz2DivHmbbV Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That now makes sense. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing plagiarized and irrelevant text

In the Lead section there was a sentence that is a close paraphrase of the introduction of a book chapter on Caral. The information is both too close a plagiarism and, lacking the context that the original source gives, is out of place in the article regardless. I am deleting it, but will include the text here: "Although its development was contemporary with that of other early civilizations such as Egypt, India, Sumeria, and China, it developed in complete isolation." Please see 'Solis, Ruth Shady, "America's First City? The Case of Late Archaic Caral", Andean Archaeology III, Boston, MA: Springer US, pp. 28–66, ISBN 978-0-387-28939-7.' on page 28 for close paraphrase: "inhabited nearly contemporaneously with the Sumerian cities of Mesopotamia and the construction of the Pyramid of Sakara or the later pyramids of Giza in Egypt. But unlike Old World societies such as Mesopotamia, Egypt and India that had exchange networks of goods and knowledge allowing them to benefit from each other’s experiences, the Peruvian process took place in total isolation from other societies on the continent." Sam Wege (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is it 'Sacred'?

Just that, and who is it 'sacred' to? It's one of those clickbait terms to attract readers. It should be deleted. 94.30.20.9 (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)