User:Enniks/sandbox

Original Machu Picchu Edits

Internet poll source Enniks (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

History (First paragraph of history will be expanded and remaining paragraphs will be put under encounters, dead references will be removed and replaced)

Machu Picchu was built around 1450-1460. Its construction appears to date to the period of the two great Inca rulers, Pachacutec Inca Yupanqui (1438–71) and Túpac Inca Yupanqui (1472–93). There is a consensus among archaeologists that Pachacutec ordered the construction of the royal estate for himself, most likely after his successful military campaign. Though Machu Picchu is considered to be a "royal" estate, surprisingly, the estate would not have been passed down in the line of succession. It was only used for approximately 80 years before being abandoned seemingly due to destruction of the Spanish Conquests in other parts of the Inca Empire. It is possible that most of its inhabitants died from smallpox introduced by travellers before the Spanish conquistadors arrived in the area. Enniks (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Daily Life of Machu Picchu as a Royal Estate

During it's use as a royal estate, it is estimated that no more than 750 people lived there at a time, most people being support staff (yanaconas, yana, aclla) who lived there permanently. Though the estate belonged to Pachacutec, religious specialists and temporary specialized workers (mayocs) lived there as well, most likely for the ruler's well-being and enjoyment. During the harsher season, staff dropped down to around a hundred servants and a few religious specialists focused only on maintenance.

Studies show that according to their skeletal remains, most people who lived there were immigrants from diverse backgrounds. They lacked the chemical markers and osteological markers they would have if they had been living there their whole lives. Instead, there was bone damage from various species of water parasites indigenous to different areas of Peru. There were also varying osteological stressors and varying chemical densities suggesting varying long term diets characteristic of specific regions that were spaced apart. These diets are composed of varying levels of maize, potatoes, grains, legumes, and fish, but the overall most recent short-term diet for these people composed of less fish and more corn. This suggests that several of the immigrants were from more coastal areas and moved to Machu Picchu where corn was a larger primary food. The skeletal remains found at Machu Picchu are also unique in their level of natural bone damage from laborious activities. Most people found at the site had lower levels of arthritis and bone fractures found in most sites of the Inca Empire. Arthritis and bone fractures are typical of heavy physical labor and of military.

Not only people were suspected to have immigrated to Machu Picchu, there were several animal bones found that were not native to the site. Most animal bones found were from llamas and alpacas. These animals naturally live in altitudes of 14000 ft above sea level rather than the mere 8000 ft Machu Picchu rests on. Most likely, these animals were brought in from the Puna region for meat consumption and for their pelts. Guinea pigs were also found at the site in special burial caves, suggesting that they were at least used for funerary rituals as it was common throughout the Inca Empire to use them for sacrifices and meat as well. Six dogs were also recovered from the site. Due to their placements among the human remains, it is believed that they served as companions of the dead. Enniks (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Agriculture

Studies have shown that much of the farming done at Machu Picchu was done on the hundreds of man-made terraces there. These terraces were a work of considerable engineering, built to ensure good drainage and soil fertility while also protecting the mountain itself from erosion and landslides. However, the terraces were not perfect, as studies of the land show that there were landslides that happened during the construction of Machu Picchu. It can still be seen where the terraces were shifted by landslides and then stabilized by the Inca as they continued to build around the area.

It is estimated that the area around the site has received more than 72 inches of rain since A.D. 1450, which was more than needed to support crop growth there. Because of the large amount of rainfall at Machu Picchu, it was found that irrigation was not needed for the terraces. The terraces received so much rain that they were built specifically to allow for ample drainage of the extra water. Excavation and soil analyses done by Kenneth Wright in the 90's showed that the terraces were built in layers, with a bottom layer of larger stones covered by loose gravel. On top of the gravel was a layer of mixed sand and gravel packed together, with rich topsoil covering all of that. It was proven that the topsoil was probably moved from the valley floor to the terraces because it was much more rich than the soil higher up the mountain.

However, it has been found that the terrace farming area makes up only about 12 acres of land, and a study of the soil around the terraces showed that what was grown there was mostly corn and potatoes, which was not enough to support the 750+ people living at Machu Picchu. Therefore, when studies were done on the food that the Incas ate at Machu Picchu, it was found that much of what they ate was imported to the area from the surrounding valleys and farther.

Sesxb7 (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sesxb7 (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Notes Agriculture

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=bBHrWwtr_pYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=life+in+machu+picchu&ots=JVCVtDt-IY&sig=CX-1_4cDS_tyirmG-VPuIZs30aU#v=onepage&q=irrigation&f=false

Farming

• Potatoes

• Maize

• Unidentified legumes

Meat was a big part of diet

Terraces

• Considerable engineering to support cultivation using natural rainfall
• Rainfall: AD 1450-1500: 72 inches, 1500-now: 82 inches- More than sufficient to support crop growing
• Built with layers of diff. materials to ensure good drainage and soil fertility
  • Bottom layer of stones
  • Gravel o Sand/gravel
  • Topsoil (from valley floor) within retaining wall
• Very stable
• Could not provide sufficient food for the population (only about 12 acres)
• Land surrounding Machu picchu probably provided most of the food necessary

Sesxb7 (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

https://search-proquest-com.libproxy.mst.edu/docview/228471133?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=14594

- Terraces protected against erosion and landslides (not perfect, there were still some landslides recorded)

- Irrigation not needed - Canals just used to carry water and runoff away - rainfall more than sufficient to water agricultural terraces

- Mostly corn and potatoes, not enough to support the people - more food probably imported or grown away from the terraces

Sesxb7 (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Notes - Macchu Picchu

(Sarah Skinner)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22096/full

• According to their skeletal remains, most people who were found at the site were immigrants to the site. They lacked the chemical markers and osteological stressors that the people would have had if they had been living there their whole lives.
• The people there also seemed to come from very diverse backgrounds. According to bone damage from a diverse amount of water parasites from completely different areas of Peru… There was a diverse presence had different osteological stressors from the skeletal remains suggesting varying diets among the people. 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169555X06005344

• Though the fadajfl, it is unconfirmed that the recent landslide is a results of a large-scale catastrophe
• Damage caused by the recent landslide do not appear dangerous to the remaining structures of the site.
• Though, everything seems ok short-term, because Machu Picchu is on several fault lines, and will likely see more major natural events in the future. 

http://www.redalyc.org/html/326/32615600012/

• Overall, the Incan diet included maize, potatoes, and other grains, but these foods would tailor to different regions overlapping, but allowing for differentiation in the diet of people in various areas.
• More corn, less fish
• Most individuals were from the yana and aclla servant classes 

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=bBHrWwtr_pYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=life+in+machu+picchu&ots=JVCVtDt-IY&sig=CX-1_4cDS_tyirmG-VPuIZs30aU#v=onepage&q=life&f=false

• No mreo that 750 people lived there at any given time and during harsher season, only a hundred with most likely being important religious specialists and support staff
• Skeletons lacked bone damage from high labor activities normal to other incan sites which suggests that the work at Machu Picchu was less demanding that other places
• The most abundant animal bones found were from camelids alpacas, though they wouild have been exotic living at only 8000 feet above sea level and not their usual 14000 ft.
• Gunea pigs were also found at the site in caves, suggesting a special dish for funerary purposes.
• They also maintained pets. Six dogs were recovered from burial sites suggesting that they most likely served as companions of the dead

• Site appears to be built in the 1450's and 1460's
• Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui created Machu Picchu as a result of military conquests
• It was only in use for some 80 years before being abandoned seemingly due to the spanich conquests destroying other parts of the Incan empire
• Royal estates suprisingly did not pass down in the line of succession
• Most people were retainers called yanaconas and many were temporary specialized workors called mayocs

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018209001370

• ...

Article Evaluation

Machu Picchu

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
  • The First American Expedition section distracted me. I understood that it was related to Machu Picchu, but I do not think that the parts where is described in detail the journey of Birmingham were necessary for this topic. I felt like other discoverers were glazed over and not as well mentioned. I don't know if that is due to lack of sources about those people or possibly less important than Birmingham.
• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • There is a whole spiel about how the relics were stolen by Birmingham and brought to Yale. And it also says that it was legal for them to take the relics, but fails to mention the laws that stated it was legal or illegal. But, this author does state the argument on either side and states the result of the argument, but does not say whether either one was right or wrong.
• Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?
  • A lot of the sources come from Yale and not local archaeologists. I don't know if that was because local archaeologists did not have access to Machu Picchu or were not as well educated, or because Yale stole them before they could, or if they just were not respected enough to be published. I don't know. Seems fishy to me.
• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
  • Links work. Yes, they support the article.
•  Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? 
  • Yes, the references come from books of people who have studied those fields.
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
  • Dates range from 1997 - 2016. I think it is very likely they update accordingly as new evidence changes the consensus of our understanding.
  • I think there could be more about what the people who originally lived there did, but I am not sure if that it actually important for the article or if there's too little information about it.
•  Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? 
  • There is talk about grammar, and organization of the article. One person notes where the article contradicts itself in the "discovery" section. There is some debate about the pictures used and the misspelling of names. There is indeed some debate about the Yale controversy.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • It is a B-class article. I is a part of many WikiProjects, such as WP Peru and WP South America, etc.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class
  • Have not talked about it in class

Machu Picchu Sources

The Machu Picchu informational site has many sources to support its data, but it does not discuss the daily life, the agricultural information, how many people, and mythical beliefs of the people living there.

• Machu Picchu: Unveiling the Mystery of the Incas, Richard L. Burger, Lucy C. Salazar, 218 pages, Yale University Press, https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=bBHrWwtr_pYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=life+in+machu+picchu&ots=JVCVtDt-IY&sig=CX-1_4cDS_tyirmG-VPuIZs30aU#v=onepage&q=life&f=false
• VARIATION IN DIETARY HISTORIES AMONG THE IMMIGRANTS OF MACHU PICCHU: CARBON AND NITROGEN ISOTOPE EVIDENCE, Bethany L. Turner; John D. Kingston; and George J. Armelagos, pg 515-534, Chungara, Revista de Antropología Chilena, http://www.redalyc.org/html/326/32615600012/

Peer Review by Athroop

Overall, the article contained very interesting information that is not currently in the original. I enjoyed learning about the agricultural uses as well as the people who lived at Machu Picchu. I found the information regarding the skeletal remains fascinating. The agriculture section had a lot of awesome information regarding how they set up the terraces and used them after construction. I would suggest rewording the second paragraph in the agriculture section, some of wording was difficult to follow. In the Daily Life section, it would be awesome if an addition of some information regarding the different types of work that the specialized workers did (if there is a source for it). I think it would be neat to learn about the jobs each person had at Machu Picchu, and some of their duties. This could help readers relate to the article. Athroop (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Response by Enniks

In the first paragraph of the Daily life section, I go over a few of the job classes, but the most I could find about the people there was that they were less laborious than others of the servant class in the Inca Empire. I looked for a while, but I could not find any sources (that were free) on this topic. And we may never even know this kind of information: there's only so much you can know from skeletal remains and pottery. Enniks (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Response by Sesxb7

The information I found about the terraces was very interesting, and multiple sources talked about how they were built in layers and how they did not need to be irrigated because of the large amount of rainfall. I only really used one of the sources, but I might add the other in to reference as well. I'm glad you mentioned rewording the second paragraph because when I re-read it, it really did not make as much sense as I thought it did. There was also not a lot of information that I could find on the farmers themselves, except for a little on where they lived, so I did not write about it because of that. Sesxb7 (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review by Hpdhw2

First off I find this article very interesting, and I also think the additions that will be made to the article are not only detailed but have good content and good cited sources. I think the Introduction section that will be added and edited to the Macchu Picchu article will combine some of the introductory information and make that section in the main article flow better. I do have some concern though, the last sentence in the Introduction section needs and period and a citation, to the online poll that collected the information, or at least an article that references who or what organization conducted the poll. In the Daily Life of Machu Picchu as a Royal Estate section the paragraph does not have any sources or citations to any of the information. In my research for my own article I found some articles that may have some of this information in them, that you can use and cite. These two sources shown below have to deal with the llamas and alpacas and the elevations at which they were raised, and that guinea pigs were raised for meat. I am not sure that these two article would help, but they may be useful. The information you may be interested in about guinea pigs will be on page 38 of the google books source below.

https://www.thoughtco.com/llama-and-alpaca-domestication-history-170646

https://books.google.com/books?id=XGtFCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=tubers+were+grown+at+what+elevation+in+inca+empire&source=bl&ots=PPopE4BtwM&sig=f2Vr4xZSbvPJlRlsJisypOpyZ7Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivkOeVu_bWAhXKzVQKHWw6DZ8Q6AEIQzAE#v=onepage&q&f=false

I think the most important thing that you can do to improve your article is just doing your best to find more sources that can be cited to back up your information, because I think the additions to the article and the sections of your article all flow well and are well organized.

I believe that your detail and organization of the introduction section, may be something that my partner and I could do to make the Incan Agriculture flow better and more organized. Hpdhw2 (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Response by Enniks

Yeah, I forgot to add the citation for the source I used in the animal portion of the Daily Life section. I only had the one source though, so I did take a look at the sites you mentioned and added them for a happier article portion. We haven't really altered the Introduction section of the Machu Picchu section. It was intended for edits at first, but we did not do so in the end. I had thought I removed that from this sandbox before class started, but that apparently, did not happen. But, you do bring up a good point about the internet poll not having a source, so I added a citation for that poll in the very beginning to be inserted into the original article. Enniks (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Response by Sesxb7

All of your points were very interesting, but because I was not the one to work on the Daily Life section, I cannot respond to your review. Sesxb7 (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)