Talk:Kuélap

Untitled

Thanks for adding the categories! Twalls

++Inspiration for Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Arc opening scene ++

Kuelap vs. Cuelap

Kuelap with a 'K' is much more common spelling. I think it might be ok to redirect searches for Cuelap to here, but the main article should be spelled with a 'K.' In Google, there are 291,000 references to "Kuelap" and 975 to "Cuelap," for instance. Thanks, Twalls 17:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

At least make the spelling consistent. It's spelled 15 different ways throughout the article :/ --Random internet lurker

You're not kidding. I believe I've fixed them, although the alternate spelling may be mentioned in the first sentence. Of course, this is rather minor compared to the copy editing that has yet to be done on both this article and Chachapoyas culture. Twalls 23:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As of 22 Jan 2007, the article reads, "The ruins of Kuelap are located at the summit of a hill that rises on the left bank of the Utcubamba, having like axis 26º24'26 LS and 77º54'16 LOG, according to the engineer Hernán Corbera." The location specified lies about 1400 mi (2250 km) to the south of Tingo village and is obviously wrong. Also the notation is obsolete, and the datum is unspecified. However, the actual location can be found by searching Terra images in the vicinity of the village, and it is conveniently viewed using Windows Live Local mapping and aerial photos. It is near (-6.3790-77.9173) WGS-84. See Geographic coordinate system. It can be viewed using the link http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=-6.3790~-77.9173&style=a&lvl=13 .

Lake of the Condors

I'm not sure why there were three paragraphs on Lake of the Condors site. It's a completely different site and has little to no bearing on Kuelap. Twalls 14:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Using Google Earth I have got the coordinates to be 6'25'07S 77'25'24W. The dates of radio carbon come from a talk made in Chachapoyas by the resident archaeologist Alfredo Narvaez. The samples were taken from the lowest point of the prinicpal entrance way. Agreed the Laguna de los Condores is irrelevant for the Kuelap page.--RogCat (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

mass grave/massacre

Wasn't this the site of the largest mass grave in peru? Apparently they were massacred in front of the temple, the majority of which being children. The skull fractures showed they were killed by typical peruvian weapons, like the star-shaped mace, as opposed to spanish ones sword/musket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

So where did they go?

This article is OK as far as it goes, but it doesn't really touch on the history of Kuelap. When I visited, I was told that its altitude made it prone to drought, because there is no natural water, which therefore had to be brought in. Thus the Incas laid siege by impeding the supply of water: the siege paid off after a couple of years. Short-lived triumph because they held it only about 50 years before the Spanish came. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.64.54 (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been there this year (2019) and at the moment, nobody knows where they went or why exactly they disappeared. According to our guide, there are signs of a great fire (burn marks on many walls), signs of violence/fights (unburied skeletons showing smashed skulls), also illness is possible caused by the high density of people inside. Some people say there was a big fight between two (or more) rivaling families inside, which resulted in fire, fights and the complete destruction of the city. Maybe the arrival of the Spanish had something to do with this , maybe it didn't. Either way, the city was never rebuilt because of obvious reasons.

Last but not least, the number of inhabitants which is mentioned in the article ("some 300 000") is completely false. The number of buildings is around 500, so there must have been ~550 people living inside each house (diameter <10m) which of course is nonsense. In my opinion, the number of 3000 is far more suitable (6 people per building), but since I lack an adequate source for that number, I don't dare changing it. -- Puiztor (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)