Talk:Qhapaq Inka

I think this article seriously needs to be worked on. For example, the article starts by quoting the theory of multiple, concurrent Inca emperors. This theory is not universally accepted. -- toivotuo 08:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who doesn't accept it? Maybe we can site this critic? The page needs more content as well, as do most of the Supa Inca's pages... maybe you could work on em? Zenyu 14:18, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

The concept of duality

Duality in the Andes goes further back than Moche. It can be detected in the iconography of older groups such as the Chavin. Check for instance the Obelisco Tello, a 2,000 year old sculpture found at Chavin de Huántar which clearly depicts a dual divinity (male and female). There are even older traces of duality in andean pre-ceramic sites which often reveal a dual organization of space. Check the following links [1], [2]. There's plenty of academic writings about this matter, I could recommend you some books if you're interested and can get your hands on them. --Victor12 16:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved

Why was this paged moved without a consensus? As far as I know the correct expression in quechua is qhapaq inka, not inka qhapaq because in quechua adjetives go before nouns. The article should be moved back. --Victor12 14:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But remember taht any noun is potentialy "adjectivezable"; in that case "Inka Qhapaq" after "Cheiff/King/Emperor of the Incas". Besides, there are dozens of examples of that phrase in chronicals as "Chimo cápac" instead "Chimu Qhapaq" or the most common knwown word "Cápaccuna" instead "Qhapaqkuna", Quechua adjectives are never pluralized. Bye-bye. Huhsunqu 19:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing terms because there are two meanings for capac. Capac as in Chimo capac is a noun that means king. That's why you find Kapac = el rey (the king) in sources such as Gonzalez Holguín. Thus, Chimo capac = king of the Chimo. Inca Capac is a different case and, I believe, a wrong statment because in all colonial sources Inca is not used as an ethnonym but in the sense of "king". For instance, in Gonzalez Holguín, Ynca = Nombre de los reyes de esta tierra (name of the kings of this land). Thus, Inca Capac = King of the King or something like that which is a nonsense. The correct term is Capac Inca where capac is an adjective meaning rich (the second meaning of the word capac). Gonzalez Holguin quotes this expression Çapa kapac inca = El Rey (the king). --Victor12 13:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the page be moved to Sapa Inca, that's the real subject matter. Goldenrowley 18:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct - Quechua - spelling is actually Sapa Inka (Sapa Inca being Spanish), but no other pages link there so I won't move it now. -- PhJ 09:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dual leadership

"Leadership systems at all levels within the Inca Empire were structured by moieties entitled the hanan (upper) and the urin (lower), in keeping with the ideal of duality. The leaders of the two moieties ruled together and were ranked equally, although the hanan leader had greater prestige and therefore dominance "

Could the editor supply refrences and citations. First, the statement needs a citation. Second, it is very interesting and I would like to read up on it and exlore it further. Take Care! Will314159 01:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Are we going to include Sapa incas that ruled for days?

There is discussion in this article of Huayna Capac's son, Ninan Ccuyochi, who ruled for a few days and died od smallpox. If this is the case, then a large number of names would need to be added to the list. For example, Viracocha put his son, Inca Urco, as co-ruler for years. Inca Urco lost the mascaypacha when prince Cusi Yupanqui (later known as Pachacutic) saved the city of Cuzco from the atack of the Chancas.

Bear in mind that history in the inca empire was carried orally by each panaca (royal family) and that disention with the ruling inca could result in names being "deleted" from history.

Msalazardc 14:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)msalazardc 5 January 2007[reply]