Talk:Nazca culture

Untitled
Could someone tell me why this article is titled "Ica-Nazca" instead of just "Nazca"? I've never seen the two together before, and I'm sure that everyone who comes to this site searches for Nazca, not Ica-Nazca. Could we just make Ica-Nazca a redirect, and Nazca the actual name of the site? LinaInverse 03:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

File:Orca mitica nasca.jpg Nominated for Deletion
glad to see that the picture was authorized and is still up I am new to the talk page and cannot find where to ask authors about details, but I noticed info about trepination that I would like to question. Is there new evidence regarding Nasca participation? while doing research a few years ago, I was told that there is only evidence of trepanation among the Paracas, but no evidence in skulls from the Nasca who came after. Can anyone confirm or document? Many thanks, Kathi kmhuber@gmail.com --Kmhuber (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Harvard to inline refs
I have changed the referencing from Harvard style to inline since most article are now using it. The page numbering request was a little too pedantic. One ref had what was without doubt a typo. 118.93.64.118 (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The llamas were exploited?
This article says the llamas were "exploited." That seems like a loaded term. Maybe "utilized" would be a more neutral term that could replace this. Thoughts? Don Branson (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Province named for the people? Unlikely
The intro paragraphs say the the modern Nazca Province was named after the people of this culture. The statement has no citation. And it strikes me as very unlikely--far more likely the other way round. I doubt if we know anything about the language of the Nazca people, or what they called themselves. If that's so, then they almost certainly didn't call themselves Nazca. I'm wondering if in fact we named the culture after the modern name of the locale. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)