Talk:Chachapoya culture

message: http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/image_header.pl?id=733&printable=1&detailed=0 <-- talks about blond indians.. it's from the 	American Philosophical Society published in 1925. these were from panama though.. haven't bothered to see whether it's the "cloud people" though interesting to note that on the first sighting when they were seen they were seen when flying under a cloud bank.. :)
:probably Injuns raped by pillaging Spanish thugs during the colonial days.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.174.110 (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: more info

message: This article is disappointing for its regurgitated and unoriginal repetition of the same tired Garcilaso and Cieza "ethnohistoric" sketches that lack substantive detail. Both authors wrote decades after the conquest, and neither reported ever personally seeing a so-called Chachapoya native. "Warriors of the Clouds" is the name of a book, not the name of the people(s). There is no scientific information in this article, although lots of sound scientific information, especially archaeologal information, is available. Finally, opinions on "Origins" and cultural affiliations of the so-called Chachapoya are divided, and this article presents only the minority opinion of one scholar, Federico Kauffmann Doig.Craneando (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: CHACHAPOYAS ARTICLE

message: From the article:
Contemporary reports such as that of Cieza de León [are there ANY other?] only indicate that they did have lighter skin than other Native Americans of the region, and it is not clear how reliable these statements are.
I'm removing the bracketed comment from the article because it's inappropriate, but it could make a good Talk topic. Does anyone have information?  Ubermonkey 19:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cieza de León 

message: There is no mention of them being bearded or hairy. That alone says a lot. Anyways, the dna(for the mummies as well) suggests that they are in fact amerindians, Just like the many mummies found in south america(including the cave ones). Dna confirms it(for the people and the mummies). Not all native americans are dead, or have been assimilated, crossed bredded, etc, you know(this is common knowledge(hopefully)). And everybody knows that spanish accounts are corrupted.Schweinsteiger54321 (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reliable source for DNA studies on Chachapoyan remains? I did find this: http://www.gen-au.at/projekt.jsp?projektId=71&lang=en Seidler is the same scientist who worked on Oetzi, The Ice Man. Twalls (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Chachapoyas

message: You should have a look at the new Wiki-page “Chachapoya” in German Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chachapoya). To my opinion it represents in some aspects the state of the art and informs about the today relevant discussion about the origin of Chachapoya culture. The English-language-page "Chachapoya culture” only presents the position of the Peruvian archaeologist Kauffmann-Doig about "mountainization of the rain forest". Today this position by most scholars is not accepted, and it seems to have been refuted by the research of the US archaeologist Warren B. Church many years ago.
The substantiation of the recent changes in the German article by a “quidquidagisprudenteragas”, posted at 15/07/2013 at the page “Diskussion” (talk), might also be interesting.
By the way: if there were ancient European immigrants to the Chachapoya-region, they probably would have been male – warriors, sailors, some craftsmen. And as far as I know the few existing DNA-analyses of Chachapoya-mummies only were based on MT-DNA, which is much easier to extract from mummies, but which never would show genetic markers of European admixtures via the paternal line (Y-DNA). So this question is, like many others, still open.
What is definitely falsified by archaeological evidence is the idea of a group of European immigrants or any other ethnic group also from the Americas, who later formed a “Chachapoya nation”. The Chachapoya culture consisted of different ethnic groups, and at least some of them developed some of the Chachapoya cultural traditions in North-East-Peru, in the Chachapoya region, more than two thousand years ago. But what cannot be excluded is that other ethnic groups arrived there later and brought with them other cultural traditions, mixed with the native Amerindians and perhaps left some genetic evidence, which perhaps will be discovered in the future and which would explain some phenomena of Chachapoya culture and as well the actually existing chroniclers reports about “White and fair-haired Chachapoya”. (More about this at the German article “Chachapoya”.)   Frank654 (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that discussion page is a disaster (or cluster&*&£)! Just tried to read through it. I see the current version of the article relies heavily on Hans Giffhorn, who "was a high school teacher of Visual Communication at the Pedagogical University of Göttingen [1] and of Cultural Studies at the Universities of Göttingen and Hildesheim . He undertook research trips and also worked as a documentary filmmaker for ARD, ZDF, 3sat and Arte in South America , especially in the urban areas of the prehistoric people of the Chachapoyas " according to his German Wikipedia article. Not exactly someone we'd use as a reliable source on en.wiki. You can see a bit of Church's work at  Dougweller (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, forgot my German but didn't notice it, just that he taught cultural studies and visual communication. No qualifications or peer reviewed publications in anthropology or archaeology (I see that in Germany cultural studies can include Philosophical anthropology but that's not relevant here). His academic work seems what I'd expect, and not relevant here . So, not a reliable source for this subject although he might be in his academic specialities. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who understands German? 

message: That entire section of the article seems designed to disprove that they were white people, and actually states it with no solidifying evidence.  This is not a scholarly, scientific, or objective.  I see this with Kennewick Man as well.
The one problem is most researchers are testing Kenniwick Man and the skeletal remains of the Cloud People with modern Europeans.  This is blatant junk science!
First, approximating the time period of the first migrations, if Europeans did cross the bearing straight they would have been the Proto-Indo-Europeans - most Europeans are descended from Indo-Euopeans and the Proto-Indo-Europeans had left little genetic effect on Europe. Also, eastern Proto-Indo-Europeans mixed with Mongoloids early on.
Second, Siberian Boy: http://rt.com/news/archaeological-siberian-american-european-069/ scientifically proves this!
Cieza de León saw them with his own eyes, this is the only conclusive evidence that can be drawn from this, he described them as white, I see no evidence to the contrary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.38.137 (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And when that claim is made in a peer reviewed journal we might use it. But that's raw data on a private company's website that you are interpreting, so the source fails WP:RS and your interpretation is what we call "original research" and can't use. Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Appearance

message: Review of a documentary at. Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hans Giffhorn 

message: Any idea what language they spoke? Enlil Ninlil (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chachapoya culture. 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/20110707163133/http://www.archaeologydaily.com/news/201009165074/New-Chachapoyan-archaeological-site-discovered.html to http://www.archaeologydaily.com/news/201009165074/New-Chachapoyan-archaeological-site-discovered.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chachapoya culture. 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/20050625020504/http://centromallqui.org.pe/ to http://centromallqui.org.pe/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "The Chachapoya adopted the technology of ceramic pots and jars around 1400 BC. It is known that this technology came from the north because of the trade alliances that they had in that direction.
The period from the adoption of ceramic technology until conquest, around 1400 to 1450 AD, is called the "Initial Period Manachaqui phase""
Should that first sentence read 1400 AD (or CE), rather than BC? 145.40.151.247 (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article is about the culture and not the archaeological  history of where they lived, I've removed the non-relevant sections. I can see where someone in good faith changed AD to BC because of the material about pre-Chachpoya archaeoligy. Doug Weller talk 08:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  1400- mistake?