Talk:Chakana

Untitled

Folks, previous versions of this article were better than the current. For instance the paragraph on the shaman at the end is out of place and inaccurate. The paqos in Peru typically, if they work with a hallucinogen at all would have more access to the mescaline cactus San Pedro which grows in the highlands rather than Ayahuasca which is made from plants of the Amazon rain forest. Shaman itself is a Siberian term and should not be used outside of that cultural context.

If you have something to say about this please email me at blue dot jaguar at hotmail dot com in the next few days. Otherwise I will be performing edits if no others interested in this topic.

Inayat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluejaguar (talk • contribs) 22:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Added NPOV and Original Research

There has to be a better way of explaining the controversy without trivializing the topic. Even though the new age beliefs surrounding the chakana may be considered false by mainstream scientific and archaeological sources, this must be presented in a way that does not attack people. Most troubling I find this line: " Another reference, Mejillones Acarapi, a self-styled Amauta (Incan philosopher-teacher) was arrested in 2010 with 350 kilograms of liquid cocaine.[15] " Does a drug-related arrest instantly discredit a person? This is an overt example of ad hominem fallacy. As was written under "Article argues with itself", this article destroys its own premises, and thus is completely unencyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD12:A569:48B8:BB1B:F873:98A7 (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I have redacted the article, removed offending language and self-referencing citations; there have been no further entries here regarding the "controversy" section of this article. Unless the conversation resumes here, I will remove the NPOV and Original Research tags. If there are objections, please state them.

Czypcamayoc (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean, "Shaman"?

I agree with the previous comments: the whole paragraph should be deleted as irrelevant (there's no relationship indicated (here or elsewhere, that I know of) between "chakana" and the so-called "shaman") and inaccurate (Shaman is a Siberian term). The assertion that "The shaman was superior to priests, sorcerers and witch-doctors" is such outrageous waffle, it must be explained and justified (but not here - how about in Inca religion) or simply deleted. The Lesser Merlin (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Original Research

The article "chakana" is entirely original research, and is simply untrue. It is fantasy. Check the citations, they are empty. The philosophical treatise in German is a clever move, but uses the word to mean bridge, as transition, not as graphic design. The citation in Spanish is in the same voice as the article, fantasy given as fact.

It seems to me that the "Chakana" is not a significant figure in pre-contact Andean culture; it is not an identifiable motif in pre-columbian artifacts except as an incidental geometrical component of some Wari culture textiles and ceramics, and, with an added level of complexity, on one example of Tiwanakan worked stone. The "Chakana" and all of it's interpretive elements emerged in Peruvian, Bolivian, and Ecuadorian tourist-oriented crafts and conventions within recent decades. Because the geometry is pretty simple you find about half of it in architectural elements now and then, and as a bas-relief on one of the pink ashlars of Ollantaytambo's "sun temple," but really, the whole thing is a modern invention. And those interpretations, do they sound Andean to you? From what source? You can substitute "amauta" for "shaman" and it's still just a way to sell jewelry to tourists. Has no authority spoken up on this in print anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czypcamayoc (talk • contribs) 07:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Article argues with itself

It looks like someone decided to add an extremely detailed and cited essay arguing against the existence of this article to the article itself. The result is a self-referential Wikipedia article that is completely unencyclopedic and, rather than presenting two differing points of view, disputes its own existence and criticizes its own writers.

The person who went to all of the trouble of creating that essay should have just had the boldness to make the article accurate using those sources, and should have kept the criticism justifying any omissions to this talk section.

I lack any knowledge of Inca culture, but as a mortified occasional Wikipedia contributor, I'm going to take it upon myself to delete the bulk of this article, as it is just plain bad. To those of you who are experienced and actually care about this topic: Please make sure your edits follow Wiki guidelines and result in an article that actually looks like it belongs in an encyclopedia, and not on an internet forum argument. Matt S. (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, one extra thought: An absence of mention from reliable sources does not itself count as a refutation from authorized sources. This does not function as a valid citation on Wikipedia. We need to obtain sources from credible authorities in the field who themselves actually refute the idea. If the idea hasn't even landed on the radar of any reputable authorities, then perhaps this entire article is unnecessary and not noteworthy. Matt S. (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The entire article as originally posted is unnecessary, untrue, and not worthy of Wikipedia. An accurate article on "Chakana" would merely state that the word derives from the Quechua for "bridge," means "crossing over," and refers to the three stars in the Belt of Orion. Reputable authorities seem to disdain to publish on the question. I believe the whole article should be removed, but am unwilling to take that action.

Czypcamayoc

"Controversy"- redaction and revision

I have redacted and revised the "Controversy" section of this article to eliminate internal conflict. The point made there is pertinent and critical, since the original article presented what is demonstrably an invented tradition, based on a single contemporary work, as actual, historical, cultural tradition, and was being quoted throughout the internet, usually without citation, as fact. The section is now shorter and friendlier, while making the same point. I have removed the citations listing the accredited authorities and primary sources who do not support the thesis of the original article - that is, all of them - to spare the reader the task of proving a negative; that no source refers to that "tradition" before the year 1983, and none as described in the article before 2003.

It seems important to respect the Andean peoples and their authentic history, customs, and traditions.

Czypcamayoc (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)czypcamayoc

Continued edit war over sourcing

Since it seems Czypcamayoc is going to blindly revert removal of a wikipedia mirror used as a source, I'd like to start a discussion here before alerting a larger audience. The source inserted here does appear to be an outdated copy of the wikipedia article at Cultural appropriation. Indeed, the material at that site has the required notice at the bottom of the page indicating that it is a simple mirror: "This article is copied from an article on Wikipedia® - the free encyclopedia created and edited by its online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of Wikipedia® encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information, please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License." Obviously, we cannot self reference and this does not come close to meeting WP:RS. What is the counter-argument? Kuru (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Response to Kuru

The edit war is on your part. I haven't deleted any contribution made by another writer. I am trying to maintain an honest and accurate article. What is your authority to "take action" against another contributor? Are you appointed, on a panel? If so, to whom would I appeal to mediate this controversy? From where I stand, it looks like vigilantism.

As for the Free Dictionary citation, it is gone. I did not recognize it as a mirror of Wikipedia.

I don't see "collaboration" on anyone's part here; just unilateral action followed by a threat. Is this what you mean by "collaboration?"

Czypcamayoc

Thank you for removing the bad reference. In the future, if you are confused by the language used by other editors, please feel free to start a discussion or reach out to them instead of reverting. Kuru (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that there was no "language used by other editors" in this instance; only action taken without explanation.

Czypcamayoc

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chakana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120104121115/http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Article/941062 to http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Article/941062
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071209171457/http://members.fortunecity.es:80/chakana/chakana.htm to http://members.fortunecity.es/chakana/chakana.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Clarity

This article is not clear at all. I am still unsure whether Chakana are a modern invention or if they indeed do have some pre-contact pedigree. Even if its origins are not indisputable surely it is possible to see the extent to which historians regard either theory and be possible to gain some consensus. Finally, the "controversy" section is not presented in a clear manner and appears to contradict the existence of the page itself. Bodha2 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Im really shocked about the misinformation in this article. The article is contradictory in itself: it says "Its origins are controversial, with contentions ranging from it being an ancient Andean symbol, through it originating from early contact between Andean peoples and Christians, to it being a twentieth-century new-age innovation." and later "The chakana is one of the oldest symbols in the Andes. It appears as a prominent element of the decoration of the Tello Obelisk, a decorated monolithic pillar discovered by Peruvian archaeologist Julio C. Tello at the Chavín culture site of Chavín de Huántar.". How is it possible that this symbol is an "[...] twentieth-century new-age innovation" when there tons of archeological evidence even artifacts mentioned in this article? Of course the "modern interpretation" (New-Age bullshit) is invented but how is it even possible that one claims the symbol itself is invented when it nearly everywhere in Andean art? JonskiC (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm here because I was reading a news item, Archaeologists discover 4,000-year-old temple in western Peru, which mentions "a chacana, an ancient cross symbol, carved into a frieze." It is, however, entirely possible to invent a symbol which is "nearly everywhere" by seeing coherence where coherence does not exist. That might be happening, or it might not. The examples in our article vary a great deal, if you look carefully at them. None of them show the central circle. The "Chakana on an Inca Uncu" is full of decorative lines, has sixteen corners instead of twelve, has an inner cross which doesn't reach to the outer shape, and lacks rotational symmetry. The stone window also lacks rotational symmetry and has sixteen corners. The first Tiwanaku examples have the right outline, but no inner details. The second Tiwanaku examples have the wrong outline (sixteen corners again), and no inner details. The motifs on the wall at Ollantaytambo are hard to see, because the right sides are missing, but it looks like the top two outlines have sixteen corners and the bottom one has twenty. The floor plan described as "half Andean Cross" is reaching. The symbols on the wari tunic could be sliced up differently by the viewer and perceived as diagonally divided squares, if we want to be awkward, or if we accept that these are chakana symbols, the internal details are different and show concentric diamonds instead of any cross shape.

So, I don't know. I get the impression that there is some sort of motif, but I'm unsure how deliberate, consistent, or meaningful it is. Perhaps it's just a habit of decorating empty spaces using shapes with stepped outlines.

It would be nice if there were some published source to cite, expressing doubt about its ontological reality.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

You are right. There is no uniform "Chakana" symbol but an underlying idea of a stepped cross which appearance varies to some degree in different contexts. All these symbols differ slightly but that does also not mean that they do not belong to the same class of symbol. I also think that "Chakana" is the wrong name for this article. Must be a New Age term instead of a scientific term. The word "Chakana" is nearly absent in scientific literature. Kolata 1993 p. 104 talks about "Andean cross" not "Chakana", Protzen and Nair 2013 p. 91 call it "stepped, or so-called Andean cross", Scott C. Smith 2007 p. 51 calls it "Andean Cross motif", Protzen 1993 p. 57 calls it "step motif". We should follow the literature and move this article to "Andean Cross". I think we should focus on what the literature says. Quotes that doubt "its ontological reality" do not exist because it is undeniable that Andean cultures had an underlying concept of a step motif. If this concept is coherent or not doesn't matter. What matters is that this motif exits. That’s why sources like Protzen talk about "Andean cross motif". For example, coherence does also not exist regarding Staff Gods. They differ extremely in their appearance and their attributes but of course "Staff God" is a common motif in Andean cultures. The same hold for the Andean cross.JonskiC (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)