Talk:Tiwanaku Empire

Merge with Tiawanaku
The article is at present in large parts a duplicate of Tiwanaku. Further there no evidence that a Tiwanaku empire ever existed. Sietecolores (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. First, this article was just split so that's why there's some duplication. The article combined kept switching between what was physically at the single location and what was within the larger regional culture that developed. It's separate between the individual archaeological discovery at the city of Tiwanaku versus the larger area that the Tiwanaku culture (if 'Tiwanaku culture' is better than Tiwanaku empire). Second, what do you mean when you say there's no evidence an empire existed? Do you disagree with File:Huari-with-tiahuanaco.png and believe that the Tiwanaku people never existed in more than a single location? We similarly separate Tenochtitlan and Aztec (or Aztec empire) to make sure that the people in the larger culture are distinct from the history of a single location. If the issue is "empire" then perhaps it should be culture or civilization I guess but there should still be a separation. Simply, Tiwanaku states that the physical area was first inhabited as early as 1500 BC but the culture (or empire or whatever) that is at Tiwanaku empire was not until roughly 300 AD so rather than an mix of the two, the Tiwanaku article can flesh out what happened from 1500 BC-300 AD and afterwards while the other article focuses on the people during that particular time period. Evidence of the split can be seen by how Template:World Heritage Sites in Bolivia, which is looking at the physical singular location, is distinct from the link at Template:Pre-Columbian which is for the civilization (or culture or empire or whatever term fits better). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok.. I somewhat see the purpouse of this article.. but the distinction between culture and state needs to be made. The culture is much better attested than the presumed empire. What belongs to the culture does not necessary belong to the presumed "empire". Indeed three articles might be needed in the end.. Tiwanaku (archaelogical site), and Tiwanaku culture Tiwanaku Empire. Sietecolores (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's probably better to call this a civilization or a culture rather than an empire or a state even. It doesn't seem like there was a state or an empire ultimately. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am also skeptical to some sources that talk about an empire. So.. what about creating a parallel the Tiwanaku culture article? The empire issue can be left pending. Sietecolores (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, Tiwanaku civilization is perhaps a better title for this article. Tiwanaku people, Tiwanaku history, Tiwanaku culture, Tiwanaku belief systems can be created and expanded as well.  --Natkeeran (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What about renaming it then? Sietecolores (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose since one is an empire and one is a specific settlement. I'm going to remove the merge tags since they've been up for almost a year and a half. Yuchitown (talk)Yuchitown

Rename?
Should the article's title be changed to Tiwanaku Empire to make this article's title consistent w/Wari Empire & Inca Empire? Alternatively, the article's name could be changed to Tiwanaku culture or Tiwanaku civilization since there's apparently a dispute over whether Tiwanaku was an empire. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes! We need to re-name this article. No modern researcher would call it an Empire – this is an old idea from the 1970s based mostly on comparisons to the Inca and an attempt by Bolivian politicians to make Tiwanaku as cool as the Inca (Bolivia v. Peru nationalism). My PhD advisor forbid us from calling it an Empire (I did my dissertation on the rise of the state at Tiwanaku). There is an interesting debate over what kind of state Tiwanaku was (bureaucratic v. segmented, etc). The page on the Tiwanaku site also needs a lot of work, but these should be two separate pages: one about the site and one about the state and its colonies and contacts beyond the Lake Titicaca Basin. E42mercury (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Religion
Far too much space is given here to Kolata's interpretation. Kolata is not an expert in the field of iconography and the interpretation of the front-facing figure as a deity was heavily criticized.--JonskiC (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Student Editor
Hello everyone. I am a student editor and I will be focusing on adding on to the Agriculture section of the article. Jennyfayfay (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Jennyfayfay, good you are welcome. Remember to follow Wikipedia's policy guidelines. Sietecolores (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)